JOURNEY IN BEING:

DISCOVERY AND EXPERIENCE OF LIMITLESS BEING

Items in red font are not part of the text. They are plans, reminders…

ANIL MITRA

A NEW OUTLINE
WITH COMMENTS AND DEVELOPMENTS

Home | Toward a new site (version with outline) | Brief outline

This document and the following will be combined into two: an outline and an in process new version. These will be a template for dispatches from the field of transformation and, later, a new version of the main narrative.

Central Statements | Toward Brevity | Outline

THIS DOCUMENT IS IN PROCESS: THE CONTENT IS IN ROUGH FORM...
AND IS SUPPLEMENTED BY TEMPORARY NOTATIONS AND PLANS THAT WILL NOT APPEAR IN THE FINAL DOCUMENT

© ANIL MITRA, NOVEMBER 2013—January 2014

CONTENTS

Goals of this outline 14

Decide web format 15

Long term—parallel to action 16

OUTLINE 16

Preface 16

Functions 16

Prerequisite to the narrative 17

The narrative center 25

Significance of the metaphysics 26

Process of discovery 26

A journey in being 26

The role of being 28

The pictures of nature 28

Significance 28

Three narrative foci 30

First focus—destiny and civilization 30

Second focus—a new universal metaphysics 30

Third focus—journey of realization 31

Approach 31

The main divisions 32

Notes from the edge 33

Epilogue 33

Lexicon, sources and index 33

Reading the narrative 33

Meanings of the terms 34

The nature of the foundation 35

Introduction 35

Origin and significance 35

Inspiration 36

Outline 36

Prologue 36

Significance of a worldview or cosmology 36

The standard cosmologies and their limits 37

Two kinds of world view 37

Secular views 37

Trans-secular views 38

Limits of the standard modern views 39

Bridging the divide; going beyond 40

Metaphysics as bridge; and as going beyond 41

Criticisms of metaphysics so far and their refutation 42

Metaphysics and experience 43

Metaphysics of the late twentieth and the twenty first centuries 43

Metaphysics and system 43

The metaphysics of this narrative; its nature, dimensions, and significance 44

Possibility and givenness of metaphysics 47

Foundation 48

Being 49

Definition and fact of being 49

The concept of metaphysics 49

Pure and applied metaphysics 49

Being and the verb to be 49

Existence 50

Power of the idea of being 50

Preliminary 50

Identifying the source of power: neutrality and therefore inclusivity 50

Leveraging the neutrality 51

Power of the idea of being—some details 51

Possibility. Actual, possible, and impossible being 52

Anticipation of the outcome regarding possibility 54

Preliminary on space and time 55

On other analyses of Being 56

Comments on substance 57

Experiential being 58

Experience 60

Definition and existence of experience 61

Objections 62

Another meaning of ‘experience’ 64

The nature of experience 64

The real world 65

The real world—Wittgenstein’s arguments 65

On doubt 66

Depth of the concept of experience is far from plumbed so far 67

On clarification of experience 68

Experience on its own terms 68

Being and experience 69

First comments on mind 71

Meaning and language 73

Sense and reference 73

Concept and object 74

Meaning, signs, language, and grammar 74

Foundation of meaning 75

Metaphysics 76

Universe 77

Laws 78

The Void 78

The Universal Metaphysics 79

The metaphysics in terms of limitlessness 79

Meaning of limitlessness 79

Doubt 82

Significance and validity 82

Significance 82

Validity 82

Meaning of the metaphysics 83

Realism and Logic 83

On proof and interpretation 84

Knowledge and freedom 84

Science and the sciences 88

Pure and practical knowledge 88

Science 89

Faith 89

Individual and identity 89

Extensive and intensive variables 93

Pre-extensive realm of absent to limited identity 93

Identity and variable 93

Extensive and intensive variables 93

Intensive variables and quality 93

Extensive variables 93

Being, space, and time 93

Descriptive cosmology 94

Physical cosmology 94

Life 94

Mind 95

Creation 95

Realism extended 95

Mathematics 95

A Perfect, Unique, and Ultimate Metaphysics 95

Metaphysics and action 95

Critical evaluation 95

Journey 96

Nature of the journey 96

Engagement 96

Civilization and realization 96

A way of realization 96

World 97

The essence of being in the world 98

Some practical dimensions 98

Challenges and opportunities 98

Politics and economics 98

Ultimate 98

Transience and arrival 99

Time frame—ongoing 100

Daily Practice 100

Sustaining activities 101

Planning 102

Time frame—immediate and ongoing 102

Design, planning, and review 102

Principles 102

Overview of plans 103

Ideas 103

Time frame—parallel to and after transformation 104

The metaphysics, its foundation and development 104

Science and symbolic systems 104

Knowledge database: principles and development 105

Foundations of physical cosmology 105

Foundations of ethics and value 105

Individual and identity 105

Time frame—2014… 106

Ideas—ways of transformation 106

General aspects 106

Ways and catalysts 106

Elements of the ways 106

Sustaining 107

Synthesis 107

Examples for study and experiment 107

Ideas—catalysts of transformation 108

Types of altered and enhanced state 109

Enhancing and Inducing Factors 109

Culture and civilization 110

Risk 110

Civilization 110

Time frame—2014… 111

Ideas—world studies 111

Ideas—civilization and realization 111

Disciplines 111

Approach 112

This world 112

Civilization of the universe 112

Artifact 112

Time frame—2014… 112

Ideas—symbolic and experimental being in realization 112

General considerations 113

Adjunct to civilizing the universe 113

After achievements in transformation 113

Notes from the edge 114

Time frame—transformation 114

Lexicon, sources and index 115

Words 115

Sources 117

Index 117

WRITING

Goals and means

Narrative goals

Communicate the journey—fact and way of limitlessness for the limited.

Write for power—to influence an audience ranging over the narrative’s conceptual, practical, and destiny orientations. I.e. to be effective and motive the core should be discursive and feeling.

Means

The main divisions

Arrangement of the divisions in chapters, sections, sub-sections and content in essentials, exposition, and explanations.

Goals of this outline

Refine. Telescopic design. Appropriate axiomatic treatment.

Minimize. Work with this document « toward brevity « central statements.
January 18, 2014: use story.html; may eliminate toward brevity.

Immediate

Write outline

Focus on essence, significance, and validity including simplified epistemology

Consider reading ® comprehension ® use.

Lexicon

Work on lexicon.

Decisions

Pictures—comments at specific pictures on connection with specific inspiration

Tables of contents—one or more. If more then multiple according to emphasis andor level of detail.

Covers—appeal, inform, and sell—review this, other texts: academic and general

Preliminary pages—careful design for appearance and content. Review this, other texts: academic and general

Decide web format

TOC’S—inner-outer; conceptual-practical-human (being-civilization-destiny-realization); essential-explanation-exposition; for sequential and ‘random’ access to the content window

Content files—a sequence of files according to the TOC categories and placed in a secondary folder

Long term—parallel to action

Find and work with an editor / or co-writer.

Keep notes. Setup a Weblog that can be maintained from anywhere.

OUTLINE

Preface

Because I intend to write a book, I use ‘book’ to refer to the web and print versions.

Functions

The preface is not an introduction. An introduction is placed in the main text.

The functions of this preface and their motives are as follows.

While Journey in Being draws on many sources across the world, its intent is discovery and realization of the place of being in the universe. It contains much that is new, especially a core demonstrated worldview. The newness will be conceptual and intuitive. Breadth of content is necessarily great and includes conceptual, practical, and human interest.

Consequently it will be useful to tell the reader what the narrative is about, to anticipate difficulties peculiar to the subject of the narrative, and to make suggestions on how to read it. These are the functions of this preface.

I will begin the process of information by stating that the scope of the narrative is not limited to exposition. It hopes to encourage action but there is no formula ‘if you follow certain steps there is a guaranteed and great outcome’; that is not the way of action in the world. The reader is shown a way but the way is that of forging rather than following.

Prerequisite to the narrative

The ideas are developed starting from ordinary language. All precise developments—science, philosophy, and other—must begin that way. ‘Ordinary language’ as used here, however, is not a minimal vocabulary and grammar. Our languages are always changing as a result of creativity and in response to changing circumstances and contexts. This is part of ordinary language. In a sense, therefore, the technical disciplines do not get out of the realm of the ordinary. But in using the phrase ‘ordinary’ I emphasize what is non-technical.

There is, therefore, no special technical prerequisite. However maturity and openness will be helpful to understanding.

On simplicity

In explanation

It is sometimes said that if you understand something you can explain it simply. That, I believe, is a half truth. It is a given that good explanation depends on clarity, organization, attention to what is fundamental, appropriate detail, and illustration. Understanding is necessary for this but not sufficient.

Certainly, if you understand your subject well enough you can explain the ideas at a level appropriate to a range of audiences. In doing so you should convey the power of your subject.

However we have not yet conveyed the meaning of ‘simple’. Regarding simplicity, some comments are appropriate. First, understanding is not passive and whatever the level it will require some effort from the listener. Conveying the power may require a re-education of intuition; this is one place that may require effort from the listener; here, an effort required from the speaker is to anticipate the problem of intuition and to effectively direct and assist the listener’s efforts. This shows that there is a difference between understanding and conveying; between original work and teaching. Often, the best teachers are not the best original workers: because original work requires a set of attitudes and talents that are not identical to those required for teaching, and then because in not having exceptional talent for original work the teacher may be in a better position to empathize with the student. Second, and related to the first, ‘simple’ and ‘easy’ are not the same. And, third, conveying power is not sufficient to conferring the power of the subject. The latter may require real work and even talent from the listener.

There is a way to work around the problems the student faces in learning a new subject, especially one that involves both conceptual and technical difficulty. This way is reflected in education where the same subject may be presented at a number of levels. In this way the student’s intuition and technical ability may develop in interaction.

In this work

Here, the approach to metaphysics from the concept of being is essentially simple. It is most certainly and obviously simpler than the idealist approach. It is not so clear that it is simpler than an approach from materialism, for is not matter ultimately simple and is not the notion of being shrouded in mystery? This two part question requires a two-part answer. Matter seems but is not ultimately simple because it requires clarification of the nature of matter which, though it may appear so, is not simple. It appears simple because I may have the thought that matter is what I feel and touch—matter is most immediate. However, though we can specify the nature of matter roughly, its fundamental nature has not yet been given any final form: perhaps our most accurate description of matter comes from physics but physics is neither complete nor perfectly precise. Perhaps physics over and above experience is not necessary—perhaps our immediate experience and careful reflection is the key to the nature of matter but perhaps not. In not insisting on specific ‘kinds’ right in the beginning, we allow clarifications of these issues to emerge rather than be artificially forced.

Thus the use of the term matter as a practical term for many day to day concerns is pragmatic. However, the use of the same term as a description of what is ultimately real is a metaphor. And if matter is metaphorical then idealism with its positing of another world is further removed from what we know to be real than is matter—idealism is a metaphor built upon a metaphor.

Now consider the mystery regarding being. Certainly many discussions of being seem to contain mystery. If I use ‘being’ to refer to the essential thing of the universe or the essence of a person then there are two immediate difficulties—they are the meaning and content of essence. If I articulate in some depth what I think a person is I still face two concerns—whether my articulation is an adequate description (content) and whether—even if it is an adequate description—it does in fact describes the essence, the very being, of the person (meaning).

In this narrative I will give a simple definition of being and ask the reader to consider all else that has been written on being to not belong explicitly to my definition. If the reader then asks what things have being on my meaning of the term my response is that this requires careful reflection and analysis which is one of the tasks of this book. I am not going to say that all else that has been written is irrelevant to my definition but, instead, I do say that the relevance of other uses of the term being is an open issue—one that I do not need to specify up front, one that is open to discovery. However, even though the other uses may contribute to the richness of the present development they are not necessary to it. Thus it is not essential to the present work to consider alternative uses of ‘being’. Therefore, it is not my primary intent to see what may be learned from other work—my approach to other meanings of being will be casual. That said, I should add that my reading on metaphysics and being has been broad and it is only after reading and analysis that I can say with some confidence that it need not be my primary and immediate systematic intent to see what further consequences other writing on being may have for this work.

The definition that I shall give will be simple and will point simply, clearly, and precisely to empirical content. Though simple, grasping the significance of my definition may not be easy precisely because it will be neutral to our common materialist and idealist and other modes of thinking. It may seem as though there is nothing in my concept of being gives us an intuitive handle on it. But this is good because it is this very neutrality that will emerge as a source of power and as a place from which both valid conceptual and instrumental understanding and valid intuition may flow.

Consequently the development will be quite ‘literal’. It will not depend on the metaphors of idealism or materialism. This will appear to rob our development of the apparent profundity and nobility that may attend substance—e.g., mind and matter—treatments. Certainly the profundity of the substance approaches is not merely apparent for it is precisely the in use of inadequate substance metaphors that profundity is required to fashion those metaphors—or any local metaphor or narrative—as instruments of understanding. However, in thus not requiring profundity the present approach will undercut the need for the limited approaches from substance—e.g. from mind or matter or process or local narrative and so on.

From the simple idea of being as conceived here it will be possible to develop an ultimate metaphysics directly and without sophistication. This metaphysics will reveal the universe as limitlessly greater in extent, duration, and variety than as revealed in traditional, experiential, and scientific cosmologies. This will be occasion for further simplicity of treatment. On account of the immensity of the universe and the variety of being, our traditional and scientific accounts of cosmology and psychology will be revealed as immensely limited. Thus the core of the narrative will not depend or need to depend on those accounts. This will make the core development especially simple.

A possible difficulty now arises. If the metaphysics of the narrative goes far beyond our valued scientific cosmologies is there any contradiction between the metaphysics and what is valid in science (and logic). If the metaphysics is truly empirical with regard to both fact and reason, the answer should be that there could be no contradiction. However, the treatment goes beyond this principle and shows explicitly that there is no contradiction. In so doing the treatment finds a simplifying unification of metaphysics, science, and logic which has been glimpsed in the very recent and remote past in various ways but which unification has not in the past taken the final step of seeing and demonstrating the unification and its revelation of limitlessness of the universe.

However, the sciences (and tradition) will be far from discounted or seen as useless. Of course they are practical instruments. However, they will be much more. The limitlessness revealed by the metaphysics shows that the individual is a journey in realization of the ultimate; and the metaphysics is capable of making general suggestions of how to approach this realization. But, for effectiveness, the generalities require to be complemented by specifics. Our disciplines (sciences and other endeavors) are one source of the specifics that are a start on the incremental and experimental process of realization.

This might suggest to the reader that nothing has been accomplished by the metaphysics. However, to think that is to overlook the immense conceptual advance of the metaphysics. But perhaps, the reader may think, there is no instrumental or practical advance. That however is not true for not only has the absolute and relative immensity of the universe been established in the metaphysics but the metaphysics also shows the general principles of knowing and negotiating that immense range of being.

Further, while many of these developments will be conceptually trivial, the new metaphysics, being as it is a merging of basic empirical, logical, and scientific truth into what may be now called logical realism, is occasion for vast expansion of this realism via means that carry no promise of ease or even simplicity. But neither is there a promise of difficulty or complexity. When the details become to difficult to negotiate we have always available the use of all practical instruments as experiments to be conducted as increments on the way to limitlessness. And it may (or may not) emerge that along the way the faculties of the being that we become will find simple what we now find difficult. Here we may wonder how a human being with his or her human identity will or may merge with such a higher being. The response is that the metaphysics guarantees merging of all cosmologies and identities (this will be established later but for now it is appropriate to note that while it may be difficult to understand how this happens it is not difficult to understand that it may happen).

Still, the core metaphysics does not require the details of the disciplines. Beyond the essential core, an outline of cosmology and person may be developed from the metaphysics and main disciplinary concepts while retaining precision. This development is what may be called pure metaphysics.

Core epistemology, too, will be simple. This is first because the precision of the core metaphysics is given (in demonstration). And it obtains, secondly, because we have no need for precision of fact or epistemology regarding the sciences and other disciplines. Of course where precision is impossible there can be no need for it and then we should even rejoice in the existential aspect of this imprecision. However, even if the disciplines were locally precise that would make our incremental search no more than a little more effective. While this vitiates the essential importance that modernity has attached to epistemology it does not at al eliminate the significance of epistemology as a practical instrument.

This does not bar detailed developments that may be subject to the imprecision of the disciplines. Such developments may be useful enhancements to both metaphysics and the disciplines but they will not initially constitute the core of the narrative. This development, along with its epistemology outlined above, may be called applied metaphysics. Later, if and when these developments are refined to the level of metaphysics, they may then be brought—by this or another author—into the metaphysical fold.

Overview

The narrative center

At the center of the narrative is a demonstrated discovery, the fundamental principle of metaphysics, that the universe is the realization of all possibility that enables a powerful and ultimate worldview or metaphysics. The meaning of the principle includes that there is no limit to what is realized or, in conceptual terms, subject to realism all ideas are realized. Particularly, individual identity is ultimately universal identity. What is ‘realism’? In the sense used here it is that the only ideas that are not realized are those that are impossible to realize—i.e., perhaps roughly, ideas that are factually and / or mutually inconsistent (this consistency criterion is not a limit). This is the world view that is greatest in the sense that all possibly real world views are contained in it. It is crucial that is demonstrated—given proof, its meaning given precise form (in this sense meaning will be precise when the principle is given a formulation that enables its use as an instrument to develop its consequences and, at least in principle, understand the ranges of consequences; the formulation may be called the explicit meaning and the consequences the implicit meaning), and apparent violations of experience, science, reason are resolved. The resolution is a start to development of a mutually empowering integration and—sometimes—reconceptualization of metaphysics, experience, science, logic and other disciplines and human endeavors. and beginning with this resolution an integration of experience, science, logic with the new metaphysics

Significance of the metaphysics

The significance of the discovery includes provision of a new vision of the universe as ultimate power and realization—via a demonstrates system of immense power and manifold consequence.

Process of discovery

The process of discovery included guesses at conceptual systems and subsequent criticism: external by comparison with the reality and internal—e.g., coherence and consistency. As long as our knowledge is incomplete this must be the way for it is in the nature of essentially new knowledge that we cannot know it to be developed ‘algorithmically’. Although there are differences among logic, mathematics, science, and metaphysics they do and must have the process just mentioned in common. Hypothesis and test—in some form—will remain the way until there is no essentially new knowledge to be had. You may object, for example, by saying that logic is not empirical. True, it is not empirical in the way science is but it cannot be for while science refers to the world, logic concerns the of concepts (declarative sentences) that refer to the world.

A journey in being

The particular path to the fundamental principle traversed many hypothesized systems. I began with the standard systems—materialism, evolutionism as an organizing principle for the world and knowledge of it, idealism, and others. I discarded all these but learned much in the process. Particularly, I learned that of course naïve materialism and idealism are different but that if we follow realism and push each ‘ism’ to its limit then the only difference between the isms is that they constitute alternate labelings. I experienced this process as a journey and began to think of it as such. My life too was a journey—my path led through many endeavors. The ‘principle’ was the same—that of seeking some fit of my life to the world. Two threads interwove the path—ideas and travel and hiking in nature; and nature was place and model for inspiration for the ideas.

A journey in being—my experience of discovery and its development over years, in the worlds of culture and nature, suggested the idea of a journey. My first experience of the discovery of the fundamental principle was that of entering breathtaking panorama of the universe—a universe of being and knowing. The fundamental principle stated above implies that individual and civilization realize the ultimate in a journey without limit to variety, peak and dissolution of realization, extent, or duration.

The idea of a journey is one of travel among nature and cultures. So it is with this journey: ideas and ground—culture and nature—are among its essential elements.

The force of the ideas suggested revelation more than discovery or creation but the ideas themselves show that the emergence of reason and means of realization is eternally experiential and experimental—that is there is no ultimate a priori. While being has been pivotal its explicit meaning will continue to emerge with reflection and experience.

The role of being

The concept of ‘being’ has been critical to the fundamental principle and related discovery; and I expect it to remain pivotal to discovery and realization. Its significance its neutrality—to be explained later—but it is insufficient to merely mention this point: it is essential to deploy it. The present deployment of being has, I think, gone beyond that of others but I anticipate that there is much more that can be done.

The pictures of nature

The pictures—in the narrative show places where I have had great and perhaps even critical inspiration for these developments.

Note—the concept of meaning is now discussed in Meaning and language.

Significance

The following outlines some achievements—what is new—and implications for ideas and destiny.

Conceptual—FP, forms: esp. limitlessness and Realism; metaphysics; consequences—all disciplines and endeavors; mechanics-method for knowledge and realization: container, increment, and interaction; engagement enhances enjoyment and effectiveness.

The ideas of the narrative are grounded in the history of human thought. Being is significant in the thought from Plato to Heidegger. The relation of metaphysics and logic is a theme in thought—recently, for example, in the thought of Wittgenstein. The idea of individual as universe occurs in the Upanishads of ancient India. However, relative to the present developments these occurrences are fragmentary. It is critical that while there have been intuitions of the fundamental principle, the proof here is its first proof—and this suggests, integrates, and gives power to the system of ideas. Thus ‘being’ is potent in the ideas of Plato, Aristotle, and Heidegger but they cannot realize its full power because they have no proof of that power. Similarly, Wittgenstein equates logic and metaphysics but does not raise metaphysics to the height of logical permissiveness (it is critical that we here recognize that logic is maximal in what it allows because it is minimal in what it requires). Finally, the Upanishads glimpse the identity, some of its immensity, and some approaches to realization but they do not know anything near the scope of these things as seen here.

Individual, civilization and destiny—realization of ultimate is given; individual engagement fosters civilization, civilization nurtures the individual; Civilization is the matrix of civilizations across the universe. Civilization engulfs the universe as an individual. The ultimate is an Individual in which individuals participate: endless variety, freshness, summits without limit to elevation, dissolutions: recurrences are of limited and unlimited duration (in a limitless universe, infinity is actual and not just potential or idealizations or limits of the finite). Uncertainty and doubt are existentially essential as in all significant endeavor. Engagement is openness to opportunity-challenge-non avoidance of pain (pain, suffering not sought but not eliminated—rather to be dealt with effectively, given meaning). Action based in the metaphysics is container for all aspiration without distinction (realization, being-in-the-world, knowledge, art, religion…)

Three narrative foci

The narrative is organized around three foci (1) motivation and grounding: destiny (2) knowledge or metaphysics and method (3) action and realization: journey. Some details follow

First focus—destiny and civilization

1. Destiny as we understand it—meaning, extension, cultivation: disciplines, institutions, integration with this world.

This requires an adequate picture of the universe and our place in it: a worldview or cosmology. As background I will outline and assess our standard or inherited worldviews (1) Secular and (2) Trans-secular.

Second focus—a new universal metaphysics

2. A new universal metaphysics: FP—being is limitless, expression as Realism. Issues: origins and proof of FP; doubt, consistency, strength of proof, faith, existential significance, knowledge-action principle… Development. Implications for ideas and being, disciplines and endeavors (details: Significance, above…)

Significance for destiny. Destiny for finite forms as a journey without ends or borders or limit to variety and freshness of being and experience.

Third focus—journey of realization

3. Journey of realization: description—endless variety, extension, freshness, recurrences of limited and limitless duration; significance (freshness, pain and suffering, engagement…); means-vehicles-places-modes-disciplines and mechanics—essentially experimental within which intrinsic-instrumental sciences play—catalysis or catharsis of being and psyche, buildup as in healing and reason; permanence vs. transience: permanence is realized in and via transience…

Approach

Arrangement of the main divisions is designed as natural for development of the foci and main ideas.

So as to facilitate understanding, the parts are written as essentials, exposition, and explanations.

To further facilitate understanding of the significance of the metaphysics, some topics are developed as far as possible naïvely—i.e., without benefit of the metaphysics (in some cases development is incomplete in other cases alternative outcomes may be given). It would be possible to develop all topics naïvely but it is more efficient to do this for key select topics and develop others in a single place after the metaphysics. Topics may include metaphysics itself, space-time-being, and mind.

The main divisions

Preface

What the narrative is about—a short account.

Introduction

Introduction to the narrative and its main ideas.

Prologue

A prologue provides context in civilization.

Foundation

The foundation introduces pivotal ideas of being, experience, and meaning. It founds development in showing a basic sense of being in which knowledge of being is perfect; it introduces experience the theater of being; and meaning is crucial to analysis of the world. The development of being and aspects of experience in foundation is metaphysics-as-perfect-knowledge as far as it goes.

Metaphysics

The division Metaphysics continues this development with proof of the fundamental principle. It is shown that the principle is consistent with science and reason. The arguments for the principle are strong but it is attended by that minimal doubt which attends all significant endeavors. If we regard the principle as basis for a program of discovery and realization then doubt is removed. Doubt is pertinent to illusions of absolute knowledge of the world. Metaphysics develops and applies the system of ideas.

Journey

The final division is Journey. This defines and illuminates the journey, shows its essential goals and ways.

The way ahead

Specific plans

Notes from the edge

Dispatches and essays. May later integrate.

Epilogue

Prospect, author, invitation

Lexicon, sources and index

Reading the narrative

Reading, comprehension, and use will be facilitated by the arrangement of the main divisions and the divisions described above.

The following features will further enhance understanding.

Meanings of the terms

Meanings are carefully specified and the net meaning of the system is brought into relief.

It is crucial that to understanding that (1) while the main concept-words have many common technical and everyday uses, their meanings here are carefully selected and specified (2) the system of concepts is selected-evolved to have net meaning greater than the ‘sum’ of individual meanings. This ‘sum’, as explained earlier, is an ‘ultimate’ metaphysics that goes beyond our common modern intuition of the world. Understanding will require familiarization with and immersion in the system rather technical facility alone.

Awareness of these points shows the need for explicit and intuitive absorption and why this may need patience, reflection, and re-reading. The arrangement into essentials, explanations, and exposition will facilitate absorption of the system of ideas to intuition.

The following may be omitted if I eliminate capitalization—e.g., by coining terms and or uses. In either case, point to the definitions section.

Capitalization—some words will be capitalized to denote the meaning in the text; non-capitalized versions may also be assigned meanings (common uses may be useful here). I will avoid the possible confusion that may result from the convention in English that sentences begin with a capital.

The nature of the foundation

Modern readers—i.e., post-classical mathematics and logic—may balk at axioms equated to truth. One classical notion of an axiom or postulate was that of something so obvious as to require no proof. Then discovery of alternate axiomatic formulations of geometry showed that a given geometry may or may not pertain to actual space. Thus the truth of axiomatic systems became regarded as relative—to be given in terms of another system or a set of symbolic models. Truth became relative. So I give an example of the absolute truths of this narrative—something exists. This may be challenged on the ground that all experience may be illusory; but if that is true then there is the world of illusion; if not true then there is experience—some ‘pure’ and some seeming to pertain to objects; of the latter some is illusory and some not which has a real object ‘the world’. This demonstration may be seen as naïve—the reader may enquire of the foundation of the notions of existence, experience, real world… These concerns are addressed in the narrative.

Introduction

May eliminate some material (primarily) from the preface and the prologue and place its essence here. May leave minimal comment at the original location

Origin and significance

Journey in Being—origin, and nature of journey. Significance of Being as container for ideas and realization. Through experience, exposure, reflection I arrived at a universal metaphysics and implications for destiny—for a journey in being.

Inspiration

Comment on the following at first picture; add comments to specific places of inspiration

Inspiration—nature and culture have been inspiration. We tend to emphasize cultural inspiration for ideas. However, I’ve found crucial inspiration from and in nature.

Outline

Outline follows the narrative foci above—(1) ground, worldviews (2) metaphysics, development (3) journey, realization

Prologue

Significance of a worldview or cosmology

Discussion will be brief.

The standard cosmologies and their limits

Two kinds of world view

The modern standard and inherited worldviews are (1) Secular which emphasize science and common experience (reduction to materialism obtains only in some ‘positivist’ versions) (2) Trans-secular, e.g., myth and religion.

Secular views

Secular cosmologies are rooted in common experience, especially science. A typical cosmology is the inflationary model with fixed light speed and so limit to known size and age; less restricted models—e.g., bubble universes—are still materialist and obey similar physical laws. Only some positivisms reduce all understanding to matter, so even materialist secularism may allow considerable freedom of being and experience.

Secularism is widely accepted. What is its validity? Theories of science can be seen as valid for limited domains and precision or as universal projection. It is a common default to see science as essentially complete. But this is circular—the result of vision that sees in terms of scientific cosmology; it tacitly assumes its conclusion. So, on its own ground, secularism is incomplete.

How incomplete? Knowledge of the universe is expressed in concepts that fit facts. The only necessary requirements on concepts, therefore, are agreement with one another and with fact—i.e., logical and scientific. The realm of fact has large and small scale boundaries; these may be continuous, e.g. for a 2-d universe that is locally spherical there may be a pinched off portion; there are also discontinuous boundaries—e.g., a ghost cosmos not currently interacting with ours. If our concepts are logical and locally factual, they have no conflict with experience or reason. That is, experience and reason—science and logic—allow that the secular worldview may be massively incomplete. This incompleteness allows a metaphysics whose only conceptual limits are agreement with science and logic in their valid domains.

Later fact and concept—science and logic—will be unified under a single notion named Realism or Logic. The universe will be shown in the sense stated above and we will consequently establish new conceptions in which the Real is the object of Logic. This is the greatest possible metaphysics: the most liberal yet realistic—the greatest freedom consistent with non-reductionist secularism.

Later, we find that in this greatest universe, discovery must be ever open to a limited form. This will imply that Logic has no a priori—that it is an outcome of process, a reflection of the one universe, that it is ever in a process of experimental discovery.

Trans-secular views

The religious and mythic cosmologies are best understood (a) as pointing beyond experience—as standing against the tyranny of common experience (b) as semi-literal or metaphorical rather than strictly empirical descriptions (c) in terms of psychological, social, and moral implications. As metaphysics they are deficient in ultimate character and or proof.

The Upanishads give a partial intimation of the ultimate formulation but no proof. In absence of proof full formulation, meaning, and reliable cosmology and use are impossible.

Limits of the standard modern views

The standard modern secular cosmology comes from science; there are secular alternatives in ‘traditional’ metaphysics and while these have some utility they are too removed material experience (empiric) to provide a ground in the real. The current scientific cosmology, the big-bang cosmology, is a view of our cosmos beginning in an intensely hot and dense state that formed elementary particles and higher structures as it expanded-cooled. There are variants such as bubble universe theory which are too far removed from material empiric to be regarded as definitive. Now, regarding the big-bang and variants the question occurs: is that all there is? There is a ‘positivism’ that answers yes. However, passing acquaintance with the history of science suggests that this positivism is likely wrong. Against this some argue that modern science has made inroads to almost every niche of nature; but this assumes of course that what we know defines ‘almost every niche’. Modern science shows us something about our cosmos but it allows very much more—e.g., cosmoses and laws without end against a vast eternal formless background populated by degrees of form. The trans-secular cosmologies in their best form stand against positivism but not science itself.

Bridging the divide; going beyond

Although we have separated the secular and the trans-secular, this separation is significantly a product of modern ways of seeing, Particularly, it is secularism in its positivist form that insists that religion should be marked of into a special region labeled ‘trans-secular’ and so lacking validity or, at least, suspect. However, while particular religious cosmologies deserve to be so marked off, we have seen that secularism is unable to assert that there is nothing beyond its borders with regard to both content and method. And it is secularism in its political form that insists that the two worlds should be separate. There were and are good reasons for this separation. However, the reasons are not absolute. And it is possible to integrate the secular and the trans-secular without introducing religions into the secular realm including politics.

That our empirical-conceptual science so far allows much more does not imply that there is more. However, if we close ourselves down to the possibility then it will be difficult to see the greater truth of this narrative when it is put before us. Without this openness we might simply refute this greater truth as an absurd violation; or we might accept it with a shrug ‘science is open but not so much for it has already revealed almost all of what there is’.

There is a clear possibility of bridging the secular and the trans-secular—from the denial of positivist science and dogmatic religion they are not necessarily distinct—and of going beyond.

Metaphysics as bridge; and as going beyond

The metaphysical but not specifically religious cosmologies have a long history that terminated in the grand idealist systems of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. With few exceptions, that kind of cosmology has fallen into disfavor. Metaphysics has been revived but only by reinterpreting it as, e.g., the science of abstract objects—by contrast to physics as the science of concrete objects. The reasons for failure can be classed broadly (1) the metaphysical systems were speculative, i.e. even if derived from experience, not based in experience and (2) ideologies, e.g. Marxism, based in systems such as the idealism of Hegel, are regarded as failed (these are, briefly, the analytic and ‘continental’ criticisms; in putting them together they are strengthened and it is the fortified criticism that is addressed here). However, that a train of systems are not based in experience or that they are failed, does not mean no system can be based in experience or that all such systems must fail. The generalization is rather like what it intends to criticize. If we regard the old style of metaphysics as knowledge of the world as it is the essential criticism is that knowledge is distinct from the known and therefore cannot be accepted as such until adequate reasons for acceptance are given.

There is a possibility that metaphysics may be the bridge and the route to whatever beyond there may be. We will find that this going beyond is vast in its reality, that metaphysics shall begin the going beyond and map its dimensions but that completion of the process must be in action.

Criticisms of metaphysics so far and their refutation

Let us draw out and analyze this criticism. On a concept-object (‘re-presentation’) model all knowledge is projection. So, faithfulness has meaning only to the extent that we can show or get outside projection—e.g., (a) show faithfulness to be given or (b) use criteria alternate to faithfulness (use the term ‘representation’?), e.g. adaptation which neither needs nor implies clear meaning or realization of faithfulness. Since there is some error relative to faithfulness, there cannot be metaphysical knowledge of all things. But we do not need such knowledge even though it is often a tacit requirement. Here, we will show perfect faithfulness for a set of ‘objects’ that will, perhaps surprisingly, turn out to be ultimately broad and powerful. There will be a price—application will need interpretation and squaring with experience and science. There will also be rewards—the resulting metaphysics will ultimate as described above; it will be container and boundary for all science and experience; and it will show a meaning of identity in which all beings are identical to the universe. There is an apparent contradiction of limits seen in science and common experience; this contradiction has already been resolved above but it does need to and will be shown how to mesh science and experience with metaphysics.

Metaphysics and experience

All metaphysics must be found—as in seek and find—in experience (comment on pertinent uses of experience; remark—‘experience’ will be clarified)

Even if we do not see how, we must admit that this possibility exists. The possibility is realized in this narrative.

Metaphysics of the late twentieth and the twenty first centuries

There are two dominant strains of modern metaphysics. ‘Continental metaphysics’, insofar as there is such, is of the type seen in existentialism and phenomenology. Analytic metaphysics concerns such ideas as metaphysics of experience and metaphysics as study of abstract objects. These studies are not metaphysics as knowledge of the world. They eschew that possibility.

There is no objection here to what has recently been studied as metaphysics (there may be doubt as to its significance). However, as we have seen, that they reject the possibility of metaphysics as study of the world, there is no principle to such rejection (but the significance of such metaphysics may be questioned and this questioning deserves a response).

Metaphysics and system

There are strong strains of thought in modern philosophy—European and analytic—that system is to be eschewed. What is the source of this rejection of system? Perhaps the motive comes from the imposition of system in prior metaphysics—especially the ‘grand’ systems of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

In this narrative system will emerge; it will not be enforced. Thus, whatever system there is emerged, it was neither anticipated nor enforced. It arises out of experience and its ‘logic’.

The metaphysics of this narrative; its nature, dimensions, and significance

It seems important that metaphysics should be precise knowledge. Why? If metaphysics is to illuminate all human activity, if it is to contain and bound all science, if it is to show us our eternal destiny—then we cannot ask less.

In fact however, it may be that to ask that is to ask too much. The issue deserves analysis rather than a dogmatic response. For perhaps there is no precise knowledge. Our proximate knowledge—everyday, science, and even logic—do not have perfect precision but, yet, we are happy with them—they are among our best instruments.

If that were the end of the matter then a natural question is ‘Why metaphysics?’ Here are two reasons for metaphysics and both have to do with going beyond science (a) beyond the borders of empirical science (b) beyond the precision of science. Therefore, if (b) did not obtain, (a) would still be a reason to have interest in metaphysics.

One reason to want perfect precision is that we can rely on such knowledge for purposes of destiny and measuring other imprecise knowledge.

What we find here is this:

1. There is a realm of precise metaphysics that goes beyond the borders of science—the only limits on being / universe are those of realism (roughly, fact and logic); so the universe has no limit of any kind; it has identity in acute peak, diffuse and absent phases without limit to elevation and variety; individuals participate in and realize the universe and its identity as part of an endless, ever fresh journey. This metaphysics is so simple that it is seen to be self-evident: the metaphysics and its method are part and parcel of the approach. However, though simple, the metaphysics gives us deep and broad knowledge. However it does not give us empirical detail.

2. For the latter we turn to imprecise science. The metaphysics reveals that there is no limit to the breadth of science—e.g. there are cosmoses and physical laws without limit. It also suggests that we cannot have perfect precision here for the each cosmos is only on the way to the ultimate. And for the same reason we do not need perfect precision. The metaphysics shows that we do not need perfect precision here—the hypothetical method is adequate.

3. Thus, in exploration of the universal cosmology of cosmoses and identity, the perfect metaphysics acts as container and goal for the imperfect. The imperfect takes us so far and then it is time to take up another aspect of tentative being and imprecise knowledge. We continue, this way—the way of being, until limits are shed and the perfect ultimate is realized.

Because the universe is limitless, realization for limited form is always in process. The metaphysics—including practical knowledge—while complete in certain ways (principle) and directions (depth) is ever open in variety which is where the essential journey lies and therefore completed only in action (for limited form).

The politics (decision and action) and economics (resource development, allocation, use) may be informed by ideas but require action—participation and immersion for ‘completion’.

4. Then there is dissolution and the process begins again. But the metaphysics shows that variety is limitless so experience is ever fresh—even of the peaks of being.

5. The perfect metaphysics with its perfect method is and acts as container and goal for imperfect science with its imperfect method. Together, these constitute an ‘over’ method.

6. Nonetheless, we have not shown that ‘imperfect science’ is never perfect. All that we have indicated is that (a) we cannot expect universal perfection and (b) that the ‘over’ method does not guarantee perfection. But there may be particular cases (and measures) of perfection. Here are two classes of perfection.

We will find particular examples of precise knowledge that is a result of the metaphysics but that also requires input from specific science / experience. Examples include knowledge of the nature of space and time; of mind and matter; of objects and their division into the concrete and the abstract—which includes a range of kinds that include universals, and what we often think of abstraction by symbolic representation, and of ideals such as codes and morals and other values; of the contours of realization of the ultimate and approach to it.

What is imperfect from a limited perspective, when it fits instrumentally into a higher scheme of perfection, can be seen from that higher point of view as perfect.

7. We have been talking as though metaphysics and science (and logic) are distinct. They are not. The metaphysics is, at least, boundary for logic and science. But it is more. It is ideal knowledge whose only limit is imagination (of the imagining entity) that requires logic and science for local empirical realization. Since the metaphysics shows that being in which we participate arrives a the ultimate, it follows that there is an ultimate realization where metaphysics, logic, and science meet. Then there is dissolution...

Possibility and givenness of metaphysics

It will be useful to discuss the possibility and givenness of metaphysics in a separate summary section.

Let us define metaphysics as knowledge of the world as it is. The point to be made, then, is not that metaphysical knowledge of every detail of the world is possible for human being (the crucial characteristic of human being is its limited form; later, after, development of the universal metaphysics we will contemplate and decide upon the possibility and facts of complete knowledge had by ‘ultimate being’). It is rather, that some metaphysical knowledge is possible. This has already been demonstrate by example, i.e. not just in principle. What is surprising, interesting, and empowering is that, as already noted, a metaphysics of immense power will be developed from apparently trivial beginnings

We have dismantled the standard arguments against metaphysics. We have shown that there is a simple sense in which metaphysics is possible and given. And we will later develop the powerful universal metaphysics. We will find that there is a significant portion of it that is beyond all doubt (not by denying doubt but by raising all possible doubt and refuting it). We will find, however, that there is associated with the powerful developments that there powerful argument but a degree of doubt that attends (almost) all significant endeavor. We attempt to minimize this doubt but do not succeed in removing it entirely. That this gives us something to anticipate, that it provides a challenge and not a guarantee is validly viewed as ‘good’ for a guarantee might encourage us to stand down and retreat into inaction. Thus there is an ‘existential’ component to the program of journey in being. The fundamental principle of metaphysics may be regarded as an (existential) action and knowledge principle.

Foundation

Check—this is foundational but not complete foundation for there is more in the division on Metaphysics

Being

Definition and fact of being

Being is that which is.

There is Being.

Proof. Perhaps all is illusion. Without Being there would not even be illusion. Therefore the conclusion that there is Being.

Commentary. Almost everything might be illusion but it is impossible that all is illusion. But, even on an account that almost all is illusion, there is more—there is the vast world of experience of which some we label illusion but much we label real and we live in that part with much enjoyment and effectiveness. There is still more—we will the fact of a real world (and, later, even more: limitlessness of the real world).

The concept of metaphysics

Pure and applied metaphysics

Being and the verb to be

Uses of ‘is’. On robustness. ‘Ordinary language and experience’ have a net of perfect precision. We begin with but need not remain in ‘ordinary language’ (by ordinary language I do not mean some minimal common language but language that is open because the world is open and therefore cannot receive the definiteness that is possible for specific contexts—common, scientific, or esoteric).

I.e., being is that which exists (existence will be clarified later).

Existence

Bring discussion of being and existence here—concept of existence; meanings and differences; in itself and in-relation; paradoxes of existence

Power of the idea of being

Preliminary

This begins to show the power of the idea of Being. If we say—but we have experience of matter what we mean is that there is something that corresponds to our experience. However, not all experience is precise. Therefore the experience of matter may be imprecise—and indeed the most precise of our definitions of matter as in physical science are subject to imprecision. Being is not subject to this imprecision. Use of Being allows the fundamental kinds to emerge.

Identifying the source of power: neutrality and therefore inclusivity

What are the sources of the power of being? First, its neutrality. Because being is neutral there is being (substance is problematic and from the development which draws from the neutrality, substance is untenable); and there is experience (on materialism we have a problem with the being of experience, on idealism we have a problem with the being of matter, on process we have problems with entity, on solipsism to which no sane person actually subscribes we have a problem with being-at-all).

Leveraging the neutrality

The fact of its neutrality is trivial. What is important is to leverage this neutrality. The first leveraging of the neutrality results from the fact that all actual things and no other have being (which means that if I have a concept of something that does not exist that thing could perhaps have being but does not; later we see that all realistic concepts must have existents—this is trivial for what measure of realism can there ultimately be but existence). Thus there is being (the being of matter is not given). A second leveraging is in laying out a system of fundamental existents that enable the development of a powerful grounded metaphysics. Experience has being and is grounding. Then, in succession, the universe as all being has being (therefore the universe is not created), laws (have being), the void has being (requires proof but this is leveraged by use of being and the fact that the void is the absence of being), and finally the absence of laws from the void—which results from the notion of being—leverages the proof of limitlessness!

We will find Being and concepts built on it to provide a precise container within which imprecise but instrumental kinds find great (greater) effectiveness.

Power of the idea of being—some details

Goes to explanatory module for being?

The power of the concept of being is that it differentiates only existence from non-existence and it is therefore not charged with prejudice at outset (as are commitment to—or against—such kinds as matter and paradigms based on such commitment).

Being will be used as indifferent to matter vs. non-matter, mind vs. non mind… substance vs. non-substance; to the distinctions of thing vs. process vs. interaction vs. quality; and, whereas, ‘existence’ is often used to signify being in space and time or being-in-relation, being will be used as indifferent to being in or the being of space-time and in-itself vs. in-relation. Being will include all extensive variables and being in our not in those variables.

Being will refer to what is discrete or not; singular or not

Being is not a being or all beings but it is what is common to all beings and to nothing else. It is indifferent whether we say of some existent that it is being or that it has being (with reference to the concept-object understanding the latter implies also has only being).

Possibility. Actual, possible, and impossible being

Goes to explanatory module for being?

What of ‘possible existence’? What is a non existent but possibly existent object? In order to talk meaningfully of things—this will be brought out more clearly in Meaning and language—we must have a concept that purports to refer to the thing (even in the presence of a tiger we have a percept and it is the fact that others will have essentially the same percept that gives meaning to the directive ‘Look at the tiger!’). A non existent object is one for which we have a concept (e.g. the concept unicorn is that of a horse-like creature with a horn) for which there is no object (note that talking in these terms in which we distinguish the normally conflated concept and object is practically cumbersome in a common shared context but confusing and sometimes leading to apparent paradox in general and in new contexts; thus the ‘cumbersome’ way of talking trivially clears up the paradox of the non-existent object).

An impossible object is defined by a concept for which there can be no object according to any criteria. That is the impossible object must violate fact or reason (i.e. known facts or logic, i.e. what we will call realism or Logic). A possible object is one for which the concept satisfies realism (it may or may not actually exist; in a maximal universe all possible objects will exist). Thus ‘possibility’ and ‘impossibility’ in this paragraph are those of ‘logical realism’ which is most permissive with regard to possibility and most restrictive for impossibility.

What is the source of the conception of objects that are impossible? Percepts –perceptual concepts—correspond to the world. Free concept formation—probably absent for lower organisms—is the ability to form an iconic and or symbolic concept to which the world potentially corresponds. Its weakness is that it is possible to form concepts that violate fact and / to reason. This is of course not a true weakness but an essential aspect of the freedom whose positive side is the ability to capture so far unknown aspects of the world. It would be a weakness if we thought that every concept captures the world or if we thought that the world is captured after insufficient comparison with the world (experiment). In an ‘open’ universe comparison may be ever incomplete. However, while it may be incomplete in some directions it may be complete others. In these complete-able directions it is possible to get a complete metaphysics. And what is incomplete vs. complete may depend on the power of mind; our minds are more powerful than some others; but there may be more powerful minds—perhaps there may be minds of ultimate power.

If we regard the universe as being-over-all extensive variables (of which examples are space and time) then the actual and the possible are identical regardless of kind of possibility. In this paragraph the ‘possible’ is whatever possibility obtains in the universe. Physicalism or materialism are the hypothesis that possibility is defined ‘that which satisfies material nature, e.g. physical law’. If our cosmos is the universe and our cosmos satisfies our physics then the actual and the possible are less than the material but only the non-material is absurd.

If being distinguishes only existence from non-existence then the existent are the actual and the non-existent include the possible but non actual as well as the impossible. But since the impossible are never actual we can omit mention of them except for clarification.

Anticipation of the outcome regarding possibility

We will find the universe to be maximal in that the possible of logical realism is actual above (for reasons stated later, we will need to be careful about the meaning of ‘all possible objects’). That is, we will find that while the conceptual intension of being is simply that which exists, the conceptual extension which is obviously the actual will be found to extend to the possible. Thus in the universe the possible and the actual are defined by realism as defined above but which needs further careful clarification.

Preliminary on space and time

Goes to explanatory module? Omit?

It is useful to say something about space and time without trying here to be definitive. There are a number of ways in which the nature of an entity can be described: it may be red, warm, a foot across, have existed for five minutes. The first two are ‘qualities’, the latter are quantities. The distinction is not absolute for, in order to be a foot in size, the entity must have spatiality. Still we may say that some qualities such as space and time are extensive while others are intensive. The intensive qualities do not refer to size and so on. Mass is extensive—depends on size but while space and time are measures of extension, mass is usually seen as a function rather than as a measure of extension. Density (mass / volume) is intensive and this is perhaps the source of the term ‘intensive’; for a continuum density has a value for a point—as does color and this is a source of regarding color as intensive even though color is not a density of any kind (but may be a function of a density such as amount of red-light reflecting molecules per unit surface area). Are space and time (or space-time) universal and are they the only measures of extension? There are perhaps realms that are so limited in structure as to have no such measures; realms in which there are proto-space-time. Are there other true measures of extension? Perhaps. However, later analysis of identity will suggest that there are not.

On other analyses of Being

Goes to explanatory module for being?

For Heidegger, Being is far from neutral. It derives from ‘Dasein’ and never leaves this origin. Here, we begin from generality but—in the considerations of Experience, Identity and more: we should say what—connect up with this realm. Further, for Heidegger Being does not encompass time—for him, Being is a ‘kind’. Heidegger does, of course, (attempt to) transcend the kinds of matter and mind. Sartre’s Being and Nothingness are psychological terms and not metaphysical.

Heidegger claims that traditional ontology has prejudicially overlooked the question of the nature of Being—dismissing it as overly general, undefinable, or obvious. He is right. It is most general but whether overly general is a matter of working its metaphysics; undefinable, if such is the case, is not the same as incapable of specification; and obvious does not mean trivial. Heidegger argues that the totality of Dasein must be grounded in temporality. He enquires of a primordial time that is the ground of experienced time. He asks some questions which are vague—but, for him, necessarily so since he is seeking something yet unrevealed / undiscovered: How is this mode of temporalizing of temporality to be interpreted? Is there a way leading from primordial time to the meaning of being? Does time itself reveal itself as the horizon of being? In the present metaphysics we will find that we do not need to invoke time; time arises out of absence of being… coeval, perhaps, with the atemporal origin of manifest being. And ‘Dasein’ has some access to that primordial situation.

Comments on substance

Goes to explanatory module? Omit. Is it included already? If so, combine.

Substance—what is it? The word has a number of meanings in the history of attempts to understand the world. If, in an attempt to explain and understand the world, I say that the world is made of matter I am regarding matter as a substance. The power of the idea is that I am explaining the world in terms of something simple (the weaknesses are that perhaps our understanding of matter is incomplete and that there may be more to the world than matter. For matter to be truly fundamental it should be the constitution of all things and there should be no ‘stuff’ that is more basic. For ultimate simplicity substance would, perhaps, be eternal, unchanging, uniform and not further reducible (thus, with present understanding, matter is not ultimate substance). Informally, the idea of substance is used to project what we find fundamental in experience to the universe. If our chosen substance is based in limited experience then the projection may be in error. A key to ultimate understanding, therefore, is to find whether there are aspects of experience that project without limit. We will find that there is no ultimate substance but that there are aspects of experience that do project (and aspects that do not) and this leads us to Being which is not a substance. We could regard being as substance but that would be no gain and might be confusing. The present development shows the untenability of substance and does not depend on it and therefore further analysis of substance is not needed. There is another meaning of substance, one in which Aristotle asked ‘What is the substance of any species of thing such as, perhaps, a could or an animal species such as the horse?’ He is asking, in material terms, for an alternate to Plato’s explanation in terms of ideal forms. We will find this to be a good explanation—relevant perhaps to proximate explanation in science and mathematics but not significant for general understanding (metaphysics).

Experiential being

The discussion above shows a connection between Being and experience and reflection suggests that the relation may be fundamental. Thus far, with the ideas of Being and experience hardly developed, this is only a suggestion. When we develop the ideas to the point where they constitute a foundation for universal understanding as far is it may go (metaphysics) we will find Being and experience to be a truly fundamental pair. This will require clarification of ‘Being’ and development-evolution of the meaning of ‘experience’.

We are interested in being in general and human being in particular. Human being is significant as (a) having symbolic formation, concept formation, and thinking (b) as an example of higher being (but we include all animals as higher because, as we will find, there is a truly but non-animal level of primitive experience; and we do not want to exclude exploration of other kinds and possibilities in higher being) (c) as a focus of our interest (since we are human and since it is the human that is our closest point of access).

However, some analyses jeopardize careful, grounded study of significant being by particularizing too soon. This is a mistake frequently made by European thinkers of an existential strain. They mire the study of significant being in not only the particularities of human being but in the particularly European neuroses and negative states of mind.

We are therefore interested in experiential—i.e., sentient being. Clearly, experience as subjective awareness is critical to our being and sense of being. This is one motivation to the study of experience that follows. The analysis that follows will mesh the most general and primitive characteristics of experience with some very general aspects of human being—the general aspects will not focus on the particularly human but on higher forms of experience in general. We can particularize later.

But we are also interested in experience for its own sake—especially as mind; and we are interested in experience as a window on the study of being.

Let us begin with preliminary comments on the relations among being and experience.

What does it mean to say ‘there is being’? This has already been answered—it means that something exists. With what instrument do we know this? (The instruments of ) Awareness. This is not to say that what we are aware of is dependent on our awareness for its existence (we may contribute to the form of the awareness but this is not true in general as we have seen in the case of being itself where we ‘contribute’ only to the fact of the awareness). However, it is in being affected by being that we talk realistically of it. What is the effect in question? Somehow, in order to talk of it, the effect must include subjective awareness or experience. Now in critiquing the content of experience we may think it is a correlate of non-experiential effects that somehow enter into experience or that it refers to fact. Facts, however are direct or indirect experiences. What we think of as non-experiential effects must enter via interaction (causal, common origination…) There is an intimate connection between being and experience. If what we think to be non-experiential effects can be shown to be essentially experiential in some sense and the indirect entry into experience is ultimately experiential at some, perhaps lower, level, then this intimate connection would be essential.

We now turn to analyze experience. The issues just raised will be among those addressed.

A critical element of the analysis will be to simultaneously (a) identify and clarify experience for what it is (b) analyze it in terms of being and (c) relate the analyses (a) and (b).

Experience

The title has been changed from ‘Experience and Foundation’ of the first production.

The following from the first production should come after developing the idea of experience: Experience—awareness—is the place of knowledge of things…

We could proceed without experience but it is our anchor in being, and the present analysis lays foundation for (a) for later improved understanding and clarification of experience and being (b) detailed study of mind, experience, and consciousness.

Definition and existence of experience

‘Existence’?

The first meaning of experience is that of subjective awareness.

The first meaning names experience (subjective awareness is not essentially other than experience). Experience names, for example, our sense of being. Perhaps experience is illusory but without it there would be neither the real nor the illusory sense; the real and the illusory sense are both experience.

Experience is a fundamental given.

That it is a fundamental given means that it requires no proof in other terms.

Thus contrary to objections, e.g. from strict materialists—

There is experience—i.e.,

Experience has being.

Human experience is ‘reflexive’—i.e., we have experience of experience—but not all experience, human or other, is reflexive.

Objections

Some people have objected ‘there is no such thing as experience or consciousness’. This objection has already been refuted above. It is, however, pertinent to reflect on sources of the objection. One objection is from behaviorism. The primary behaviorist objection was that since experience (consciousness) is private—not open to ‘inter-subjective’ study, it is not a proper object of scientific study. Many scientific objects, however, originate as hypotheses and are not open to study—it is their effects that we study (even the most seemingly real things are subject to subject to this concern: a percept, even on inter-subjective agreement, is not the object). Another objection is from materialism. The materialist objection is that (a) everything is made of matter (b) the subjective, experiential aspects of mind are not material; therefore there can be no subjective aspect of mind. This brand of materialism, in which the elements of mind are not present in the elements of matter may be called ‘strict’ materialism and, even on a materialist account, it is not clear that there is no elementary aspect of mind present—known or unknown—in matter. According to the behaviorist and the strict materialist, mental behavior is behavior as if the organism had experience (to which it is pertinent to reply ‘Had what?’… and if the reply is ‘Had an illusion’ the relevant reply begins with ‘But what is illusion?’). While the objections of the behaviorist and materialist are based in putative principle there is also the possible confusion that because experience is unreliable—it is possible to hallucinate—therefore knowledge that there is experience is unreliable. Another possible source of the objection to experience is that there are some people for whom reflexive experience—i.e. experience of experience—is not present or regarded by them as present but irrelevant to their view of what is important. In all cases the answer is that we have shown the existence of experience. To the objection of irrelevance we add that relevance is not determined by fiat but by careful study and therefore we should not close down our philosophy at the beginning of thought. However, we can make a preliminary observation—we have already seen that experience is critical to human being and, further, we may show that it is critically instrumental.

Show this under the material argument and, perhaps, again under ‘mind’

Some thinkers have found a way around these criticisms of arguments against existence and relevance of experience. They argue that there are two kinds of experience (or consciousness). They admit that there is subjective or phenomenal experience. They point to experiments with brain damaged patients that purport to show awareness without subjective awareness. They then argue that there is another kind of experience ‘a-consciousness’ or access-consciousness which is accessible for verbal report or action. They then minimize the instrumental relevance of phenomenal consciousness (or deny it). However, experience comes in varying degrees of reflexivity—i.e. there are degrees to which we are aware that we are having experience (experience of experience). Therefore the fact that a patient is unable to report awareness does not imply absence of awareness. What is going on, then? The matter is subtle and is deferred to later study of mind.

Another meaning of ‘experience’

The meaning above is different from the meaning in ‘cumulative experience’. The first meaning is a factor in forming the latter.

When the sense of experience would not be clear use ‘cumulative experience’ to distinguish it from subjective awareness.

The nature of experience

In this section we begin to study the nature of experience.

Much experience is or seems to be that some experience is of things. Perhaps that is an illusion—perhaps as the solipsist suggests ‘there is only the field of experience’. Perhaps there is nothing else.

However, that we know of experience is experience of experience. Some experience has experience itself—other or perhaps even the same—as an object.

There is a world—and it is, at least, made of experience.

But perhaps there is nothing but experience. Perhaps the idea that experience refers to things—to a real world apart from experience—is an illusion. This ‘solipsist’ claim is not intended seriously but is a challenge to the realist—the person who claims that there is a real (or external) world that may be an object of experience but is not experience and whose existence is not dependent on being experienced.

The real world

We think there is a world that we experience but—except for the existence of experience, established above—that could be illusion. That there is something outside or external to experience could be an illusion.

This purported outside is sometimes called the external world but I prefer the term ‘real world’.

Thee is a real world and experience is part of it.

Proof. I there is only experience then it either does or does not range over its idea of the world. The latter entails contradiction; the former is an alternate labeling of the world which is real and which contains experience.

Analysis of experience shows experience itself and the concept of the real world be non-illusory and significant and this constitutes a certain robustness of the concepts of experience and real world.

The real world—Wittgenstein’s arguments

Now Wittgenstein argues against the solipsist in §§401, 402, 403 of Philosophical Investigations. He is talking of interpreting a new way of seeing things as seeing a new object (this is what the solipsist does). He argues that this is a mistake by giving an example “As if… ‘he has pains’ could be untrue by some other way than that man’s not having pains. As if the form of the proposition asserted something false even when the proposition faute de mieux (for want of something better) asserted something true.’ Wittgenstein asks us to contemplate a situation in which he used the word ‘pain’ for what he had called ‘my pain’ and others had called ‘Wittgenstein’s pain’. He then asks ‘But what should we gain from this new kind of account? Nothing!’ He is saying that the new account is merely relabeling.

On doubt

Doubt, here the doubt of the solipsist, has forced us to clarify our thinking and our understanding of the world. This is a function of doubt—that it leads to clarify thought and understanding. Now we did not take solipsism seriously as a point of view; it arose as an idea—is there a real world—and we entertained that idea seriously only to find that its only serious aspect is clarifying and understanding. Thus we often consider doubt that we find, in the end, has no practical value as a position in itself.

Of course not all doubt carries with it the sense of absurdity of the apparently rational doubt of solipsism. For doubt can lead to a conclusion of non-existence but that would be the same function.

There is another function of doubt. Sometimes we have a proof of some claim. We may be able to show that the claim violates no fact or reason but we may have doubt about the absolute certainty of the proof. In such situations we have strong reasons to think that the claim is true; however, we are not certain. This is the case for all significant ‘truths’; if it is truly significant there is some doubt. What shall we do under this circumstance? Shall we proceed as though the claim is untrue? Because the claim is significant we have even moral responsibility to act on the claim but perhaps to exercise some caution. On the other hand, proceeding as though it is true may enhance efficiency and enjoyment of the process and that we therefore tolerate some risk of failure. The situation may be described as having existential faith or an appropriate existential attitude. This situation characterizes much human activity including science and reason and even logic—and we shall see this to be the case.

Existential faith will be important in what follows.

Depth of the concept of experience is far from plumbed so far

We have considered he nature of experience. Its first meaning is subjective awareness; it is a given; experience—at least some of it—is of things, i.e. of a real world. We would like to probe deeper. How deep does experience go? Is pure experience truly not of things? What is the relation of being and experience. Should their relation be considered essential or contingent. Does experience arise out of the organization of being (matter)—i.e., is it emergent? Or, higher experience—experience as we experience it—a sum of lower, elemental, experience in entities or organs that focus, elaborate, multiply, and give it freedom from its original tight bond to the environment as in stimulus-response and so allow for hallucination and iconic and symbolic imagination including free concept formation?

On clarification of experience

Concepts can be clarified along two lines—on their own terms and in terms of other (fundamental) things.

Experience can be clarified along two lines—seeking depth to its meaning on its own terms and in terms of other something else—other fundamental things such as being, matter, process, and interaction.

The greatest clarification and illumination results from proceeding along and relating these lines of approach.

Experience on its own terms

Some experience is of things. Primitive experience is of an object. It is an aspect of the effect of the perceived on the perceiver.

Primitive experience is (an aspect) of interaction.

Is all experience interaction? Pure experience appears to be an exception.

There are two ways in which pure experience is interaction. Pure experience is stimulation in key centers by—the ‘seat’ of experience—of a trace snapshot-collage of earlier recorded experience some internal or external trigger and is thus (a) delayed and potential interaction of organism and world and, more critically, actual internal interaction. The capacity for pure experience is at the root of concept formation—iconic and symbolic.

So we may argue that all experience is interaction.

Pure experience is ‘in itself’ with regard to one object—the individual—but interaction with regard to others—parts of the organism (e.g. parts of the brain).

Thus experience is an aspect of the interaction among elements of being. Fundamentally, it is in the experiencing element in interaction with the experienced element.

The relation of being and experience is intimate. How intimate is it? Is it in some sense essential?

Being and experience

Is all interaction (associated with) experience? ‘All interaction’ includes interaction of the most elemental parts or aspects of being and, to even give the question meaning, we must think of some very primitive level at which there is nothing like our normal experience but where there may be what in complex systems compounds to our normal experience. What the question we are asking is whether our experience is compound of primitive level ‘experience’ or whether experience is an emergent feature at some level of material organization.

Here we give a tentative answer to the question in terms of substance theory, particularly materialism. We have ruled out strict materialism. I.e., the materialism in question must be that all being is material but not that matter is exclusive of experience (mind).

On substance theory—e.g. materialism—the elements of experience must lie among the elements of material interaction (which may be known or yet unknown).

Proof. If matter is a substance then mind is either conjoint with matter as part of the same substance, present with matter as a second substance, or it emerges with organization of matter. The final possibility is unable to explain experience as experience. The second one is unable to explain the interaction between mind and matter. We are left with the first possibility—matter and mind are coeval.

We have shown that, on materialism, some interaction the primitive level has primitive experience.

Thus we have shown that there is an intimate and essential connection. We have seen that all experience is interaction but not some but not all elemental interaction is experience. Thus the connection has not been shown to be perfect or ‘full’ That all experience is interaction is unconditional. However that some elemental interaction must be experiential is conditional on materialism.

This will be sharpened later after development of the universal metaphysics. We will want to see whether we can eliminate dependence on materialism and whether some or all elemental interaction must be conditional.

Is there Being without experience? On any metaphysics, there is no element that has no interaction at all. We found all experience to be interaction. On materialism—neither proved nor disproved so far—we then found that experience is, at root, among the primitive interactions; i.e., on materialism, being and experience are almost two sides of the same coin. All experience is interaction. On universal metaphysics we will find that all interaction is past, present, or future experience.

First comments on mind

Title?

We now turn to integrating the two approaches to experience (in its own terms and in terms of being)

Experience is a first experience of mind. What is it? Is it all of mind?

The question ‘what is something’ means explanation in terms of something else (another concept) or in its own terms (e.g. the higher concept in terms of the percept; this is usually called ostension or ostensive definition rather than explanation). The question regarding mind means is it a fundamental category or is it a manifestation of another category such as matter. We are not yet in a position to answer these questions because our experience of experience is clearly primal in coming before matter but matter is the dominant modern explanatory paradigm or category. However, we have not yet clarified the being and nature of matter.

For the present we take as premise that matter is a fundamental category or substance. We will find this premise to be rather approximate—is matter the sole substance, are there substances at all and if so is matter the sole substance—but analysis of mind in its terms will be illuminating because it provides a first approximation that may be corrected later.

The following paragraph-proof is repeated from above.

If matter is a substance then mind is either conjoint with matter as part of the same substance, present with matter as a second substance, or it emerges with organization of matter. The final possibility is unable to explain experience as experience. The second one is unable to explain the interaction between mind and matter. We are left with the first possibility—matter and mind are coeval.

What then is mind? If we think of matter as substance in itself then, from the considerations on experience, mind is substance in relation. In other words mind is the interaction of matter. If the only interactions of matter are the known kinds (force) then this is what mind is. But surely this is very remote from what we experience as mind. The explanation of this difficulty must be that in the complex cases—animal mind—what emerges is not mind as such but aspects of mind—feeling-emotion-cognition, afference-efference, levels of mind, self-reference, brain autonomy or freedom from environment (thinking, concept formation). The difference between particle interaction and experience is that of degree and not that of kind or category.

While the conclusion seems paradoxical (panpsychism) it follows from the premise of materialism. It follows because the alternate of strict materialism does not allow coeval or emergent mind: it disallows coeval mind in its strict nature and it allows as-if mind (behavior) but not mind-as-such.

Our tentative conclusion, therefore is that experience, fundamentally construed, is the essence of mind.

In the modern literature on philosophy of mind, ‘attitude’ and ‘action’ are putatively two other ‘poles’ of mind—as though there could be, in violation of what we have established, mind without experience. Therefore, attitude and action are not poles in the dimensions of mind. They are of course significant but experience is essential to both and experience plus something else that would not be mental if dissociated from experience.

Later we will loosen the premise of materialism and correct and improve upon the conclusions. The corrections will not fundamentally change the idea that experience is the essence of mind.

Meaning and language

New section; content implicit in the first production; may import or repeat Preface-Introduction comments on new / system meaning but in a form appropriate to this: ‘newness’ ® contextual; system ® whole context

Discuss (1) Meaning: concept-object-word;; sense, reference (2) Its power (3) Analysis and Synthesis of Being

Sense and reference

Experience refers to part of the world—and object. This reference is actual or potential. This is a source of the sense and reference conception of conceptual meaning due to Frege.

We will formalize experience and reference as concept and object

Concept and object

Here the primary meaning of ‘concept’ will be mental content and not that of ‘higher concept’ or unit of meaning or free or concept or imagination; the latter are included in this primary meaning of concept. A percept is a concept (in the present sense). Here ‘concept’ will mean ‘referential concept’—concepts that purport to refer to something in the world.

In this section the focus is the iconic concept (icons are structurally related to their objects; alternatively we may say that icons are parts or wholes of our total experience of objects but not abstractions that relate to objects by convention)

A concept and its object (‘reference’) constitutes meaning. Having a concept does not guarantee reference. Simple concepts with meaning may be combined and the compound concept may have or lack meaning. There is a grammar of combining concepts. Such a grammar would be impossible to elucidate in absence of knowledge of the nature of the world (no perfect grammar without perfect metaphysics); and even with this knowledge its elucidation would be complex. Such combinatorics are acquired in evolution and development.

Meaning, signs, language, and grammar

In language signs such as words are associated with concept-object pairs. In language icon-symbol-object constitute meaning. In pre-linguistic meaning the concept is the icon. In linguistic meaning the concept is the icon-symbol; the association is essential for without it there cannot be convention. In normal language use the icon is implicit. This provides efficiency in representation, communication, and transmission (but also loss of detail which is partly compensated by context). Alphabets improve efficiency of word generation and representation. Word concepts may be combined in sentence concepts according to descriptive grammars. Such grammars presume at least a local knowledge of the world; and reflects in the shape of sentences; further shape factors may be convention / attitude / poetic / power / lack significance / ‘erudition’. They are no doubt discovered by trial and error over combinations. Because of the apparent precision of symbols at least formal languages and their grammars have an appearance of necessity and from their remote origins present as a priori. Are they necessary? Are they a priori? Are they empirical? Traditional answers tend to the necessary and the a priori and away from the empirical. We are not yet in a position to evaluate this strong traditional and perhaps intuitive tendency. We will be able to make an evaluation later after development of metaphysics

Foundation of meaning

What is the foundation of meaning? It must, since we never get outside it, be the organic relation between language and its use. However, while particular ideas may lack identified objects, from the point of view of neutrality of being there may always be implied objects. The metaphysics that flows from the fundamental principle and to which we now turn will be one in which, subject to clarification and refinement, a referential concept that is consistent by factual and logical criteria has an object.

Metaphysics

The order below is not ironclad. Should §§ Universe—Void be in foundation?

Notes and changes: Universe through A Perfect, Unique, and Ultimate Metaphysics. Transfer the following to a new section? Note on Method: method = developing and demonstrating content (how and proof, discovery and justification) which are traditionally distinct. Traditionally proof is emphasized because proof is public and critical. However, careful analysis show that the separation occurs only in isolated problems and static knowledge; in the whole and dynamic case, perfect separation is impossible. Here’s a brief outline of Method revised from previous treatments. (1) Recalling that a percept is a concept, almost all knowledge is projection; therefore if there is to be perfection it does not follow from the concept-object notion no matter how apparently precise. It must follow from some other source and this cannot be universal because we know that there are cases of error (some people conclude that knowledge is inevitably tinged with error but this is erroneous). (2) What is an essential outline of justification? In some cases the concept is a given! These turn out to be non-trivial resulting in metaphysics—including the universal metaphysics. This frames all knowledge. It also shows ultimates but the way to the ultimates is via the proximate for which, therefore, error is not only tolerable but also good. This applies not only to knowledge as such but also to value, particularly ethics and aesthetics (check against first production), and moral codes (and norms and laws)… which leads to a place in which we find that logic and grammar, which we may have thought a priori, are themselves experimental—provided we go far enough back there is no a priori (3) What are some methods of creation? It all has to do with finding concepts to match the object. This is the generating principle. Particulars include trial and error, particularly extended iterative improvement; wide experience and learning; interpenetration of criticism and creativity; respecting tradition without subservience; use of whole being—emotion, cognition, action… Particularly in the arrival at metaphysics care is needed but not more care than fits the situation; which allows and encourages ‘creation’; however, this balance between care and forward movement is not known in advance and itself is part of discovery. There are special situations where local knowledge may be shown to be perfect via analysis of concept-object perhaps in light of the universal metaphysics. . Where to treat Applied Metaphysics; and what shall it be called—‘Applied Metaphysics’ or some alternate?

Universe

Use sources.

Change the first production as follows: The Universe is All Being. Therefore: There is one and only one Universe.

Change the first production as follows: The Universe contains all creation but is not created. Any creator is part of the Universe—The Universe can have no external creator. (Consider omitting word ‘creator’ or putting it in after the comment; note that creation implies a creator—self-creation is impossible except once in existence something can participate in its further evolution; ‘creation’ does not apply to something out of nothing which is better described as origination.)

Uncreated

No outside

Possibility

Laws

Laws have Being

The Universe contains all Laws

Comment on power of being (in explanatory module)?

The Void

Use sources.

Explanatory module for The Void

The Void deserves its own explanatory module because (1) It requires to be clearly distinguished from other conceptions of it and from related notions—especially conceptions that arise from an incompletely neutral conception of Being and which therefore do not result in a precise conception of the Void (or of the Universe… or of Law). (2) Because of the difficulties attending the question of its existence.

Explanation for existence of the Void. (1) Various proofs. (2) If the Universe were in a Void state ® various consequences including the fundamental principle. This shows the existence of the Void.

Fundamental nature of the Void. (1) Its power. (2) Equivalence to all particles of Being and to all Being. (3) Relation to related conceptions, especially the quantum vacuum, (4) Number of Voids.

The Universal Metaphysics

The metaphysics in terms of limitlessness

Development

Proof. Start with ‘if the universe were in a Void state’. (My written sources for this.)

Meaning of limitlessness

The ways this can be confused (rethink this list)

1. Limitlessness does not refer specifically to the size or boundary of the universe; or to its duration. This is a negative statement. Let us put the meaning of limitlessness in positive terms as follows

In objective terms it means that all possibilities are realized (perhaps it is better to say that the actual and the possible are identical and note that this entails a proper definition of possibility and therefore care is needed in importing any already conceived notion of possibility).

Thus an eternally infinite universe would be limited. For limitlessness the universe must experience infinite (i.e. limitlessly infinite), finite, and non-manifest phases.

The universe cannot be simply our empirical cosmos. Cosmoses must occur without limit. This raises a problem of time. Can any one cosmos be of infinite duration? That might contradict limitlessness. However the sum of a sequence of cosmoses could be infinite. What of the universe? Is its duration infinite? Perhaps the best response is to not specify but simply say, in a tense-less sense that The universe is.

In subjective or conceptual terms limitless might be expressed: any system of concepts that does not violate logical realism is realized.

2. When context is tacit, non-contradictory statements may seem contradictory (true contradictories are not part of ‘all possibility is realized’).

3. It might seem to imply that when experience pushes beyond the known cosmos all things will be in the immediate discovery; it does not; it implies, however, that discovery is unpredictable and open—we may reasonably but not necessarily expect near term continuity; long term discontinuity is necessary; and regarding ‘all things will be in the immediate discovery’ the meaning is that this is true of the variety of discovery over the collection of cosmoses identical to a given limited cosmos

4. Logic (Realism) applies to relations between concepts and objects but not to objects per se

5. That at any moment the universe is in some state implies that it is not in others; this appears to be a limit; explain why it is not (that the universe is not universally extensive with regard to space and time is not the reason that it is not a limit); and not that, with regard to limited portions of the universe, the original statement ‘That at any moment…’ is at most partially true when predicated of the parts

Explanatory module for the metaphysics

This includes explanatory discussion of Law and Universe—all appropriately done together with discussion of the metaphysics.

The explanation. Two things are crucial (1) The concept of Being (2) The system of concepts—Being, Experience, Meaning, Universe, Law, Void. Experience provides connection (relation) and robustness. Meaning provides method of discourse (including Logic). The fundamental metaphysical system is, then, Being, Universe, Law, Void, and Logic. Beginning with Being as neutral and Universe as all Being—it follows that all Laws are in the Universe, therefore the Void has no Laws and therefore can have no limitation and it is this that leverages the fundamental principle and so the system of metaphysics including Logic as realism.

Regarding proof and interpretation. Have a separate section?

Doubt

Mention. This is the one residual doubt. Note—consistent with all valid knowledge and experience. Strong reasons. Knowledge and action principle. Faith and attitude. Optimal resource allocation. Need not mention again. Existential attitude—in this way incomplete certainty is better than certainty.

Other doubts and counterarguments. Mention / list / detail?

Incorporate criticism here or a separate section. Rename this section. Topics under criticism: consistency, validity, meaning, and significance… also see the section On limitlessness

Significance and validity

Where should this section go? Merge it with other sections? Check for repetition.

Significance and validity of the system(s)—develop, show, and present significance and validity of the systems

Significance

Ideas—concepts (‘academic’)

Being esp. human—proximate (practical, human) and ultimate (realization)

Validity

Pure ideas—(1) Elementary metaphysics up to existence of the void; existence of the Void—consistency, strength of proof, doubt and existential attitude (2) The universal metaphysics: demonstration and development (FP, formulations)

Application—relations between the pure-ultimate and normal realms in knowledge and action—the normal within and interaction with the pure; FP as a knowledge and action principle

Devoting (allocating) resources to realization of the ultimate—derives from (1) Analysis of ideas and application in interaction with (2) Significance and promise for being

Meaning of the metaphysics

I use the word ‘limitless’ to signify actual rather than potential infinity and to emphasize lack of any kind of real limit rather than some particular infinity.

Realism and Logic

Logic (includes fact, science without specific specification because percept = concept)

Relation to many worlds

Word ‘Logic’ to not appear in general text?

Replace ‘Logic’ and its equivalent ‘Realism’ by logical realism?

How will logical realism ‘fit’? Begin in patches? Do they mesh—if so (a) fit (b) realize… an example of proof, not just interpretation

On proof and interpretation

Many proofs are trivial (just note this at the appropriate points). The interpretation may be non-trivial.

However, the further development of logical realism will require non-trivial activity—hypothesis? Demonstration? Test?

Knowledge and freedom

The metaphysics shows the universe as ultimate; we know this

However, our knowledge of detail is limited in extent and precision

We have a concept—fact and pattern—the empirical universe which lies in but does not cover the universe

If we knew the entire universe as fact we would not need knowledge of pattern. Our being would be the being of the universe. We would be ultimate but there would be no further realization but dissolution.

In a sense, therefore, not knowing the whole is a freedom—the possibility of a journey into realms unknown to our being

The ‘greatest’ being does not have this freedom. A lesser being—relative to us—e.g., an elementary particle, has great freedom but lacks explicit knowledge of it (at least on our models). Therefore the effective freedom of the particle—it’s knowledge and experience of freedom—is limited. The ‘least’ being has greatest freedom but no effective freedom

Which being or beings have the greatest effective freedom? That is what being or beings has the greatest experience of freedom?

Ask, first for a characterization of our freedom. It is that our knowledge—fact and pattern or percept and higher concept or, simply, concept—is sufficient to show the nature of our real and given potential it is incomplete relative to the whole. We know and will realize real potential but have not yet realized. We have and know the opportunity

There is a range of being that is sufficient to know ultimate (given) opportunity but is sufficiently incomplete that a challenging and rewarding journey remains

‘Being’ cycles through the primitive, potential, and realized states

Objects

This section is fundamental.

This section and the next are not new to my thought but are new to the essential edition.

Form and its lack of ultimate importance

Mathematics…

Knowledge

Should this be explicit? Should it be here? Combine with Knowledge and freedom above?

In the ideal case every concept in the field of logic has an object and this is profound for attitude and action.

What is the implication for the practical case? Thus far I have been thinking that this means that approximate knowledge is ideal or can be seen as ideal. Now perhaps I see it differently. Given the ideal, there is no need for ‘practical perfection’. Given the ideal framework and existential doubt (is doubt the word I’ve been using?) frankly approximate knowledge is best from the ideal point of view and the practical—the latter being increment and correction within the ideal frame. In other words the imperfect is perfect.

Method

Should this be explicit? Should it be here?

Pure and Applied Metaphysics. These names? Here? This has been simplified immensely (to three phases: pure, container for practical, special).

On rationality

This may be drawn within method

What is rationality? The idea of rationality is that of a way to choose the best path of action—or, at least, good paths. Issues (a) what is the meaning of ‘good’ (b) how to get valid knowledge is a part of rationality

In absence of ability to conceive, choice does not arise. In omnipotence the ‘good’ is given. Rationality is an issue for beings lying in some range between ability to conceive and omnipotence

What is the ‘good’? We do not precisely know. We can say with some reason that it is connected to survival and quality of life. We can talk of best but there may be more than one good path of action and, generally, there will be no single best path. In some situations there will be no known good path (we will then have to experiment)

In other words, though we know what rationality is, we do not know that it is always relevant except in the sense that it includes knowing that sometimes ‘blind’ experiment will be the only known course and that when we know more than just that we may have only guesses as to the good and how to achieve it. That is the realm and practice of rationality are vague and imprecise

The nature of rationality is a question of rationality

All knowing and acting above a certain level of significance is like that. The question ‘What is philosophy?’ is an open question and in particular it is a question of philosophy. Similarly, the question ‘What is mathematics?’ is an open question; it is a question for mathematicians of course but it is not completely answerable within mathematics (Gödel showed it to be partially but incompletely answerable within any formal system of mathematics); it is also a general question of the nature of our understanding and as such it is a question of philosophy.

These conclusions of openness follow from the open nature of the universe and being-knowing in the universe. However, the expression of the metaphysics as Realism and the understanding that that brings shows that the questions ‘What is rationality… philosophy… mathematics?’ and so on have more precise general answers than mere openness or vagueness suggest. Here we are in the process of providing such precise answers.

Science and the sciences

What should the essence of this section be?

Title? Here? Keep?

Logic

Objects

Epistemology

Metaphysics

Pure knowledge

Doubt

Pure and practical knowledge

Metaphysics and science and their complementary nature is already addressed

Science

Nature of science—local fact vs. universal projection

Process or method. Historical and practical concerns. Modification from universal metaphysics

Methods in particular sciences

Faith

Individual and identity

Is creative intelligence the apex of Being? Universe?

Addition to the first production after comment ‘Apparent limits are part of the constitution Of the forms of Being: Form and limit are positive and negative aspects of a being.

Identity

Individual

God

Not the purpose to identify ‘God’ with the god or gods of any particular religion or given conception.

Main issues:

1. What is God? Need for analysis of meaning (regardless whether the traditional meanings and objects have significance)

In talking of God, many decide that for their purpose God shall be the Christian God or the God of the Abrahamic religions and so on. They choose to talk in terms of a set of cultures or faiths. There is no harm in so doing except that if god is to mean anything like ‘real’ and ‘greatest being’ or ‘greatest potential’ then they are off the mark, perhaps limitlessly so. But their culture or faith blinds them to this and so blinds them to the greatest realization. This is a great world in which to live but they would live forever in the dungeons of the universe.

We shall use god in the sense implied above. We could use another word. It could be argued that our use is misleading (some might say ‘blasphemous’). But, then, to use another word would be to abandon the objective: to connect culture really with reality; and it would be to give in to the intimidation of those who use such terms as blasphemy.

Therefore, God will be the greatest being—or, perhaps, the way tot that being.

It will be—or its knowledge will require—a process of discovery and or realization. To choose some cultural picture—even one that is a good metaphor or allegory—is to abandon the greatest potential of our own being.

2. Givenness

3. Where in the world do we see signs of ‘God’? The goal is to be empirical, i.e. the signs are to be the best actual signs in the world (e.g. nature, an eagle, humankind, aspiration…) and not evidence as in the argument from design which refers not to god as such but god’s effects.

On evidence vs. signs. The distinction is hard but the words are not (as English words they have overlap). So, to see my meaning, focus on the following use and don’t be distracted by other meanings with which you may be familiar. If I see bear paw prints that is evidence that a bear was there. If I see a the tail end of a bear around a tree, that is a sign. I am particularly interested in those signs that make me suspect ‘large animal’ or ‘bear’ but are not altogether convincing. I think it is most pertinent to look for signs of God. Where do we see signs. God does not reveal him / herself.

I do not exclude evidence. But to seek only evidence and not signs is to invite error, to abandon infinite potential.

Where then do we see signs? In the beginning of this search we will allow signs that are not altogether convincing. If we always stop because we are not sure we will not find the real.

4. The first signs.

The first signs are in the world. Where are they? What are those things that are capable of some of the powers we assign to god?

It cannot be other than ourselves.

It does not matter that we debase ourselves, that we may be imperfect. It is not the case that god must be perfect. Perhaps the greatest perfection requires a shadow side of imperfection.

In talking of ourselves as (early potential) god I do not of course intend to exclude other creatures.

5. The limit.

Cosmology

The following concerns arise here. 1. Should I keep just this one subsection to Cosmology? Even if I eliminate the title, I should probably emphasize that it is physical cosmology? 2. Should Individual and Identity be made a subsection of Cosmology? Where should Mind and Life be placed?

Modification from the first production: The Universe has neither beginning nor end. In a sense of ‘is’ that accords with earlier remarks on the extension of the meaning of ‘exists’—The Universe is.

Modification from the first production: That is, breadth is ever open—particularly, the extension, duration, variety, Summit, and dissolution of manifest Being have no limit. Subject to Realism, systems of physical law are without limit.

Addition to the first production after comment that there are no indivisible particles: There may be undivided particles of limited duration…But there are no particles that remain undivided over all extension.

General cosmology

Extensive and intensive variables

Pre-extensive realm of absent to limited identity

Identity and variable

Extensive and intensive variables

Intensive variables and quality

Quality not essentially non-quantitative

Extensive variables

Argument that space and time exhaust the extensive variables—but attitude of openness

Immanent quality of spatial and temporal extension

Non-standard space and time—differentiation and measure, dimensionality

Being, space, and time

Foundation in identity

That space and time are not universal measures of extensionality; that they are perhaps not the only ones but on analysis they are perhaps the only ones (but ‘space’ and ‘time’ are not necessarily as discrete as ours where they obtain—space need not have dimension and time is perhaps not restricted to one dimension)

Origins of space and time in (a) the void and or (b) formlessness

Matter and mind

Origins of physical cosmology

Descriptive cosmology

1. The level of realism

2. The computational level of Logic

Physical cosmology

How to characterize physical cosmology? Is it the cosmology of extension and duration? Of ‘matter’? Of what?

Cosmology and destiny. Destiny of what?

Where / when to discuss multiverse, quantum theory, fungibility, determinism; remember that quantum theory is itself being and does not define the universe; if the cosmos is a multiverse—it is still is a speck; remember the non-universality of the speed of light (and of ‘matter’, space, time…)

Life

Is ‘life’ necessary here? What is life in this context? Is / how can life be an instrumental / central concept? Relate to mind.

Mind

‘Attitude’ and ‘action’ are not poles in the dimensions of mind. Experience is essential to both and each is experience plus something.

Creation

Mathematics and physics of infinity as an approach to measuring relative significance of self-adapting or normal evolution and guided or created evolution

Realism extended

Mathematics

A Perfect, Unique, and Ultimate Metaphysics

Keep this section? Keep its heading level? Keep it here?

Metaphysics and action

Journey

Critical evaluation

Validity and significance

Here? Note its done elsewhere in concentrated form and in bits and pieces

Journey

The order below is not ironclad

There is no section System of experiments. Instead there are new chapters The way ahead and Notes from the edge.

Nature of the journey

Keep this? Keep title?

Neither the journey nor its contours were conceived in advance—and, though the statement of the metaphysics may have been conceivable, its fact, proof, and implications and nature of the journey were inconceivable without a journey: having a hope, seeing a glimmer, and following it rather than some definite promise. Further, the living details of realization are inconceivable for a limited being at outset—this is a direct implication of the metaphysics

Engagement

Keep this? Absorb to above? Keep title? Individual and engagement?

Attitude and realization

Civilization and realization

A way of realization

Keep title? Ways?

More on ways and the way (of being); more on catalysts and their experimental nature than in the first production (p 20); more on evolving the way (and how that is, after all, part of the way); and more on an immediate program.

Approaches

Emphasize the intrinsic and the instrumental (which are not distinct) Different societies have had different emphases. It may seem that the instrumental has outstripped the inner today (to the extent that the inner-as-realization is ignored in the mainstream: what the mainstream has is enjoyment-of-a-fixed-inner-capacity). However, the inner is essential to full being. And, the instrumental is also at a beginning

World

‘The proximate’. Not distinct from the ultimate.

Keep this? Place here or after transience and arrival (and if placed after, then comment at last picture at bottom of page?)…or after Civilization and Realization? Keep title—I’d originally wanted to call it ‘The World Today’ but that is too limited? Still I can also discuss ‘The World Today’ for it is important in itself and to the connection of this work to the world today and that connection is (another?) connection to destiny!

A separate section or sub-section? Problems—opportunities. Relation to journey.

The essence of being in the world

Keep? Title?

Some practical dimensions

Keep? Title? Combine with previous

A story of world takeover by the military-industrial complex via manipulation of the political system… there is no conspiracy but naked power… paradox of Eisenhower… …role of intellectual in American vs. European history

Challenges and opportunities

Combine with previous section? Title was: Problems—opportunities.

The future of nations and national boundaries.

Relation to journey.

Politics and economics

What should the essence of this section be? Separate into two sections? Relate to the section ‘Science and the Sciences’?

Title? Here? Keep?

Ultimate

System of ideas and experiments

Transience and arrival

Keep title?

Conclusion

Last picture at end, not side, and with comment on pictures. Here if there is no epilogue—otherwise at epilogue.

The way ahead

Function

Plans and planning.

The plans should be minimal and revisable

Wide-angle view

Way of life

There can be no way but being—that is, be-ing and becoming intertwined. What will vary is emphasis.

Emphasis will cycle through sustaining (be-ing) and transforming (becoming).

Sustaining

Sustaining has a single section below.

Planning

Planning is an identifiable part of and should intersperse the total process; it is a connector of sustaining to transforming.

Transformation

The scheme of execution is as follows:

Ideas-publishing ® transformation of being ® return to ideas.

While the distinctions are blurred there are four sections on transformation: one section on ideas and three on transformation of being according to the following scheme:

Individual being and identity-sharing ® civilization ® artifact-technology.

Sustaining

Time frame—ongoing

Modified to suit transforming activity

Daily Practice

1. Routine—rise and sleep early. Review planning (below), plans and tasks.

2. Dedicate. Meditate—review, practice: focus, spaciousness of being… Meditation in-action: pro-act—values, goals, others, death as spur and transition.

I dedicate my life to the way of being— // Its discovery and revelation—Shedding the bonds of limited self / In meditation and action and not in avoidance of or waiting for perfection / As incremental action—inner and outer—illuminated and contained by the ultimate / That I may see the way so clearly / That living it, especially in difficulty / And by knowledge of difficulty, / Will merge force and flow… / And reveal The Way and its / Truth and power. // May I always live and share the way.

3. Transition. Experiment… Ideas, write, art, music…

4. Exercise. Aerobic, flexibility, posture, hiking fitness.

Sustaining activities

1. Place and transportation—aims, nature spirit, community… university… a life of feeling.

2. Skills—for aims, money. Work: web, workplace—online, for community, aims, finance.

3. Health—physical and dental; and spiritual.

Planning

It will benefit the entire endeavor for this study to be preliminary, parallel, and subsequent to transformation.

Time frame—immediate and ongoing

Immediate and ongoing.

Design, planning, and review

1. Review of the entire process being becoming, its elements, soundness, completeness and needs. This is self-referential: it includes reflection on the nature of planning, making it efficient (quality, quantity), and reflection on the nature of rationality (rationality is a topic in rationality).

2. A way to express the ‘method’: analysis and synthesis of being and meaning (sufficient to ends that emerge in the process).

3. Needs for fundamentals and phases of realization.

Principles

‘Just do it’ expresses these thoughts (1) There is an optimum balance between planning and execution; (2) We do not always know perfectly where the balance lies, nor can we plan perfectly; (3) Therefore ‘just do it’ is not mere impulsivity; and (4) Action is energizing; (5) Plans are enhanced by experiments—and ‘just doing it’ is experimental; (6) ‘Doing’ engages others.

Review the above. Other principles?

Overview of plans

Since the ideas are relatively complete the immediate emphasis will be on transformation with support from ideas.

Improving and extending ideas, means, and plans preliminary, parallel, and subsequent to transformation of being will be effective for the entire endeavor or journey.

After a phase of emphasizing transformation of being, it will be useful to re-conceptualize the entire endeavor.

Ideas

All ideas could be placed here but the following arrangement is more effective.

1. This section focuses on ‘general knowledge for transformation’—that is, metaphysics on a broad sense.

Here, metaphysics is understood in a general sense—the universal metaphysics (a) itself and (b) in interaction with and as container for practical knowledge (especially science and the sciences)—for synthesis and as mutual sources of criteria and significance.

2. Each of the three sections on transformation of being will have one or more sub-sections on the ideas or concepts pertinent to the aspect of transformation considered.

Time frame—parallel to and after transformation

Parallel to and after transformation.

The metaphysics, its foundation and development

Foundation—metaphysics, practical knowledge, and method; and completion in action—mostly done; begin with The metaphysics of this narrative. Process—Analysis and synthesis of (meaning and) being. Proof—consolidate proofs and arguments for the metaphysics. Logic—carefully think through demonstration that the metaphysics and logical realism (Logic) are identical.

Logic—(1) Studies in literature of logic to see if my conceptions stand up and to see if the extension to realism (Logic) as science-logic stands up (2) Understanding of and facility with first order logic, perhaps more, for use in development (3) Development of the new conception ‘Logic / realism’ and analysis-synthesis of the realms harbored in realism.

Development of the metaphysics and application—see Metaphysics, Journey; later, iterate through and reduce dimensions of human endeavor and knowledge

Science and symbolic systems

Science and symbolic systems as studies and studied—subjects and objects. As objects this includes formal study, models, self representation. Topics: from grammar to language, logic, set theory, mathematics—much done; implications for realism

Knowledge database: principles and development

Source—knowledge database.html

Knowledge database (and system of human knowledge)—(1) Refine (2) KDB software (3) Plan, implement

Foundations of physical cosmology

‘Physical sciences, especially quantum theory (1) For comparison to the universal metaphysics (2) To find whether quantum theory contains the universal metaphysics—if it does at all, I expect QM and FP will be identical for possibilities but not for probabilities (3) To consider laws as objects—is there a hierarchy of laws, e.g. from QM to FP. (4) To consider the relevance of other physical theory (especially relativity) to such questions and the universal metaphysics (5) For information on the elements, dynamics, and structure of our cosmos

Note—sciences of life (and mind) and social sciences are entered under Symbolic and experimental being and World studies, respectively

Foundations of ethics and value

Examples morality, civil law and value and their immanent (local…) forms of Ethics, Justice, and Value.

Individual and identity

Principles and means are outlined above.

Time frame—2014…

2014…

Ideas—ways of transformation

General aspects

Givenness, beginning in the present. Learning, experiment, iteration are essential; tradition is a beginning

Ways and catalysts

Catalysts act on the organism, e.g. via shock or resonance. Their aim is to unlock innate (e.g. savant-like) capacities. They act indirectly on the person.

Ways, e.g. the eightfold way and psychoanalysis, act on the person and indirectly on the organism.

The distinction is of course blurred as is the organism-person distinction. Ways may include catalysts; catalytic change is integrated via healing and personal-cultural interpretation.

Elements of the ways

Means (ideas, action)-vehicles (individual, civilization)-places (nature, culture)-modes (intrinsic—especially immersive: ways, catalysts, art and religion; instrumental—science, philosophy, technology)-disciplines (established interacting with experiment and selection / criticism)

Core mechanics of risk (experiment, splitting) and consolidation (rebuilding, increment in reason, recollection, and artifact)—i.e., analysis and synthesis of being and meaning.

Sustaining

Tradition and experiment,

Synthesis

To organism by iteration upon small change… To person and culture by synthesis-reason, record, transformation, iteration… To process (including evolution) by entry into to transience-permanence.

Examples for study and experiment

Introduction: it is important that the meanings of the systems, while presented as systems, are not at all fixed and should not be; there is experience but not expertise

1. Religions of native peoples—Shamanism, Native American religion.

Shamanic systems—(1) Communally guided tradition of plant use (a. plant chemicals, b. preparation) (2) Communally guided and interpreted vision quest.

2. Mysticism—Greek, Jewish, Christian, Islamic; and mythic cosmology as map of world and psyche

3. ‘Indian’ (Veda, Upanishad, Vedanta and other ‘non orthodox’)—Yoga (transformation, connection), meditation (openness; meditation—not available on the Internet; instead see yoga), Tantra (embrace; and the also existential: death as horizon and spur to closure in this life and gateway to universal life), Death—its understanding as horizon and spur to closure to this life and gateway to universal life

4. Buddhism: Mahayana (four truths, eight-fold way) and Tibetan (Tantra: Chöd, Beyul)

The way of the Buddha—an example. Four truths—there is suffering; it has a cause; there is a permanent end to suffering; there is a way to this end. Eightfold way—eight ‘rights’—Wisdom or prajna (1) View (2) Intention; Ethical conduct or sila (3) Speech (4) Action (5) Livelihood; Concentration or Samadhi—(6) Effort (7) Mindfulness (8) Concentration. The eightfold way has been analyzed as cognitive-emotional-behavioral. Shamanism includes a way of psychic transformation—ways of transformation neurology to receptive states, especially vision seeking without and with psychoactive substances.

5. Modern—hypnosis, EMDR, psychoanalysis (Freud, Jung, object relations, self psychology…), psycho-behavioral re-education (REBT), 12-step logic

Ideas—catalysts of transformation

Approaches to transformation are evolutionary, systematic (ways, ideas) and catalytic.

Types of altered and enhanced state

Dream, hypnosis, meditative—focal and open space, unconscious access, object free but vivid perception and thought (‘hallucination, delusion’), enhanced vision, receptivity, feeling-emotion, ideation, kinetics and kinesthetics.

Enhancing and Inducing Factors

Isolation-deprivation, inaction, exposure—extreme environments, shock, trauma, pain, exhaustion… Fear—presence, crisis and opportunistic sense, dissociation and reintegration via exposure to anxiety (Chöd)—volitional or not—and purpose… Repetition, rhythm, dance, point focus (e.g. breath), and engagement as sources of experiential space and concentration; ritual… Immersion in new perspectives—handedness, new languages, travel—cultures and emote environments (receptivity in Churches, Beyul), sacred texts and poetic expression, acting as stepping outside the bonds of self… Fast, diet, psychoactive substances… Charismatic transformation via purpose, preparation, risk-exposure to people and places, and insight into motives… Brain state technologies…

Goals

1. Experiment, increment, consolidation toward greater being.

2. Immersion in civilizing.

3. Build at every stage upon what has come so far so that the outcome is far removed from the beginning and what may have been conceived in the beginning.

4. Reflect on the means (experiment, immersion) and ends (build); to concretize (making notes will help)—so as to see progress, strength, weakness, need; and so to conceive and implement ideas for improvement.

Experiments

Preliminary

1. For planning, see the goals above. Also, at some point—‘just do it’

2. Transition requires openness to essential newness and therefore to ignorance, searching, and inspiration… and places of inspiration

3. Preliminary trips and experiments.

Nature

Travel-share-vision-experiment.

Culture and civilization

Being. Immersion.

Risk

Get out of comfort zone. Do good work—civilization.

Civilization

Experiments and ideas toward knowing and realizing the ultimate emphasizing Civilization.

The primary mode of transformation is intrinsic: individual—identity, participation, and immersion—and civilization as such: individual-group synthesis.

Time frame—2014…

2014…

Ideas—world studies

For World—values, laws (e.g. constitution), ecology, politics (immersion / grass roots), exchange values (international and local), and economics.

Ideas—civilization and realization

Analysis and role of civilization in realization—(1) The idea—civilization is the web of human culture across time and continents. Greater civilization is the matrix ‘civilizations’ across the universe. Individuals foster civilization; civilization nurtures the individual. (2) Concepts—the universal metaphysics reveals a limitless universe open to individuals and civilizations.

Disciplines

Disciplines including the discipline of discipline are progressive.

Significant topics from Transformation of being—Ideas for transformation are: Catalysts of transformation; Ways and means of transformation and realization; World studies; Civilization and realization

Approach

Approach—integrate with individual transformation; participation and immersion; this world and the universe.

This world

This world—participation, immersion; problem and opportunity; politics, economics, technology, and the trans-secular.

Shared endeavor, community, communication (publication)… See TranscommunityDesign and a first plan—TransCommunity.xls (Excel) or TransCommunity.html.

Civilization of the universe

Civilization of the universe—shared endeavor; metaphysics and transformation; retreat and return; exploration, artifact, and technology

Artifact

Time frame—2014…

2014…

Ideas—symbolic and experimental being in realization

Artificial being including life and experiential being (including study of life and mind); concepts; computation; modeling, symbiosis; design; experiment; evolution. Technology for Civilization. Theoretical (and experimental) study of transformations with organisms, individuals, selves, and dissolution of self—psycho-biology.

General considerations

The primary mode of transformation is extrinsic or instrumental: science, technology, artifact—artifactual aids and symbiosis and constructed being—including life, mind, and intelligence

The approach is defined above in plans for Symbolic and experimental being in realization—see the topic Symbolic and experimental being in realization.

See immediately above for TransCommunity.

Adjunct to civilizing the universe

Technology as adjunct to Transformation of being—civilization.

After achievements in transformation

Return to ideas; analysis again, integration, open attitude

Notes from the edge

Time frame—transformation

Function

Record ideas and transformation—to refine and enhance process, to share, to weave into narrative.

Versions

Web. The heading Notes from the edge will link to a page titles that link to content pages that appear in a separate window or frame.

Epilogue

An alternate title: After-word

Some possible elements are:

Prospect

The author

Invitation

Lexicon, sources and index

Words

Coin words—for meaning and power

Collect a set of basic words—so that capitalization is not needed, confusion with common technical and everyday use avoided. Enhance this by coinage

An initial set:

Being, Metaphysics, Existence, Experience, Meaning, Laws, Universe, Possibility, Creation; Void, Limit, Logic, Science and Realism; Object, Identity… Space and time words…

Names such as Universal Metaphysics may be capitalized without further remark.

Civilization… need an alternate for ‘Civilization’

Replace academic / intellectual disciplines by conceptual disciplines. Then, the disciplines are: conceptual, practical, and human

Being. When used in the sense of that which marks existence—being. ( colloquial use, e.g. ‘this being the case’ need not be remarked. For particular beings—entity (or process, interaction, quality…) regardless whether concrete or abstract. Tense-less use of being and exists—somewhere in extensivity!

Existence. This word will be unremarkable except (1) There will be a use of it that is neutral to tense or place or, more generally to extensivity (2) The given that there is existence (3) Existence very close in family meaning to Being will be differentiated in emphasis as follows: Being will be emphatically neutral to marking substance or non-substance, the being of or in space and time (especially universality of space and time), being as entity vs. process vs. quality vs. interaction) and (4) For the problem of the non-existent object which however will be shown to have trivial resolution.

Experience. This word will be reserved for the range of meanings captured by ‘subjective awareness’ (seen as relation). For cumulative experience I will use ‘cumulative experience’. Alternate. Use awareness instead of experience (and point out that at root there is no awareness without elementary consciousness)—in this use ‘awareness’ will mean ‘content or feeling of awareness’ whether elementary or compound, perceptual or free concept and or symbolic; use experience for cumulative experience.

Meaning. Among the common meanings of ‘meaning’ are (1) conceptual and linguistic meaning and (2) significance as in ‘the meaning of life’. The former is the conceptual use of meaning in this text. The latter use will be important but informal. Where it is necessary to make the distinction I will do so.

Concept. Use concept for mental content—which will include free concept and percept; use higher concept for higher concept; use representation for purportedly referential concept (actually referring or not).

Extension. Use extension to refer to proto-space (extension as the range of reference of a concept will be a secondary use restricted mainly to its mention). Use duration for proto-time. Use extensive variable or extensivity to refer to markers of identity and, perhaps, quality to refer (tentatively) to distinctions that mark identity without necessary change in extensivity. Regarding the intension and extension (sense and reference) of an object, use conceptual intension and conceptual extension (or, simply, sense and reference)

Logic. Use realism or logical realism. Mention Logic.